Jordan v. Sprint Nextel Corp.
3 F. Supp. 3d 917
D. Kan.2014Background
- Jordan, an attorney in Sprint's Law Department (2003–2005), alleged SEC-related related-party transaction disclosures were mishandled.
- Relocation-Related Transactions involved Sprint purchasing executives’ residences and providing loans; Jordan reported concerns in 2004–2005.
- Jordan alleged pressure from Sprint officers and Toussaint to limit disclosures and restrict his access to information.
- Jordan claimed a series of adverse actions, culminating in purported constructive discharge in April 2005 and resignation in May 2005, followed by alleged post-employment retaliation.
- Jordan filed OSHA complaints (Jordan I, II, III) from 2005–2010; ALJ/ARB proceedings spanned years with multiple consolidations and stays.
- In 2012–2013, Jordan filed suit in federal court; Defendants moved to dismiss on limitations, laches, and failure to state a claim, among other motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of SOX retaliation claim | Jordan contends de novo federal review is available if no final DOL decision within 180 days. | Options under 1658(a)/(b) or other limits apply, potentially barring claims. | Not barred; §1658(b) inapplicable and de novo review available under §1514A. |
| Laches as a defense to §1514A claim | Complaint suffices; delay not prejudicial under 12(b)(6) standard for pleading. | Delay and ALJ/ARB record show prejudice; laches bars claim. | Denied; laches not properly shown at this stage. |
| Failure to state a claim against Foresee | Foresee participated in or directed retaliation actions; personal liability may be implicated. | No allegations show Foresee personally retaliated; dismiss him. | Foresee dismissed from the case. |
| Sufficiency of alleged adverse employment actions | Constructive discharge, failure to rehire, and SEC communications harmed terms/conditions of employment. | Some actions (SEC communications) are not adverse employment actions post-employment; constructive discharge raises disputed pleading standards. | Constructive discharge adequately alleged; failure to rehire inadequately pled; SEC communications not properly pleaded as adverse actions; constructive discharge remains. |
| Sanctions and related procedural rulings | Misrepresentations in briefing warrant sanctions. | Sanctions were improper and unnecessary. | Motion for sanctions denied; strike of sanctions motion denied; no sanctions awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court-2009) (heightened pleading standard applies to entitlement to relief)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir.1991) (pleading standards and reasonable inferences for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Admin. Review Bd., 717 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir.2013) (deference to ARB interpretations of §1514A considered)
- Garrison v. Gambro, Inc., 428 F.3d 933 (10th Cir.2005) (prima facie case elements for failure to hire analogue)