Lambdin v. Aerotek Commercial Staffing (TV2)
3:10-cv-00280
E.D. Tenn.Aug 25, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Brandy LamDIN LamDIN v Aerotek and ABI arises from Aerotek’s termination of plaintiff after a background check performed by ABI/Shadow Trackers/Verifi/Shadow Trackers.
- The Court previously granted in part and denied in part Aerotek’s first motion to dismiss, dismissing FCRA, breach of contract, and false light claims against Aerotek and ABI, while allowing state-law claims to proceed against ABI and against Aerotek for interference with employment.
- Plaintiff later added Shadow Trackers as a defendant and proposed adding Verifi, with the proposed third amended complaint adding new claims and expanding Aerotek’s involvement in alleged improper background-check processes.
- Aerotek moved to dismiss the second amended complaint arguing failure to state claims for tortious interference with a current or prospective employment relationship and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and that the Release barred claims.
- Plaintiff sought discovery under Rule 56(d) arguing that the release required additional materials; plaintiff also sought leave to file a third amended complaint incorporating Verifi and TCPA claims, which the Court partially granted and denied.
- The Court ultimately granted Aerotek’s motion to dismiss in part, denied in part, denied as moot the motion to file the third amended complaint, and granted leave to amend the second amended complaint consistent with the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference with current/prospective employment | LamDIN alleges Aerotek used improper means to interfere with Ison relationship | Aerotek contends insufficient pleadings and no improper means | Plaintiff may amend to add proper- means claim; not futile. |
| Breach of the duties of good faith and fair dealing | Implied covenant exists; Aerotek breached it in terminating employment | No factual basis for a breach in an at-will context; allegations are conclusory | Leave to amend denied for this claim. |
| False light invasion of privacy (revived claim) | Newly proposed facts show public disclosure | Previously dismissed; no new facts show publication to the public | Leave to amend denied; claim futile. |
| FCRA claims against Aerotek | Aerotek acted as consumer reporting agency | Aerotek is not a CRA; claims against it fail | Leave to amend denied; no facts tying Aerotek to CRA status. |
| TCPA claim timeliness (discovery rule) | Discovery rule tolls limitations until release discovery | TCPA claim time-barred since release signed in 2009 | TCPA claims time-barred; leave to amend denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trau-Med of Am. Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691 (Tenn. 2002) (established 'improper means' concept in tortious interference)
- Pero’s Steak & Spaghetti House v. Lee, 90 S.W.3d 614 (Tenn. 2002) (discovery rule tolls limitations when plaintiff discovers injury and facts)
- Shadrick v. Coker, 963 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn. 1998) (discovery rule applicability in limitations analysis)
- Wyatt v. A-Best Co., 910 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1995) (discovery rule typically fact-driven; court may dismiss if injure known)
- Stanbury v. Bacardi, 953 S.W.2d 671 (Tenn. 1997) (limits of discovery rule; fact questions for jury)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for sufficiency of complaint)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (fact-pleading required; conclusory statements insufficient)
- Teeters v. Currey, 518 S.W.2d 512 (Tenn. 1974) (early articulation of discovery rule for TCPA)
- John Kohl & Co. P.C. v. Dearborn & Ewing, 977 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. 1998) (acknowledges discovery rule considerations)
- Barnes & Robinson Co. v. OneSource Facility Serv., Inc., 195 S.W.3d 637 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (contract interpretation with implied covenant)