Post v. CVR Energy, Inc., 2:17-cv-02698

James Post, a CDL truck driver for Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, was off work for a rotator cuff injury (May 2014–Dec 2015) and had a preexisting heart condition; he maintained prior DOT certifications.
After a treating physician cleared him to return (Dec 10, 2015), Coffeyville directed Post to obtain a DOT physical from Hess Clinic rather than his prior provider; Hess allegedly refused to examine him and required medical-record releases.
Hess informed Post (Dec 22, 2015) he would not pass the DOT physical; a different physician later “passed” him in early Jan 2016 and Post provided that to his employer.
On Jan 7, 2016, Post received a termination letter on CVR Energy letterhead stating he was terminated for medical disqualification under DOT rules; Post alleges CVR and Coffeyville only accepted Hess Clinic physicals and refused more time.
Post asserts claims for ADA violations (discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate), wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (based on workers’ compensation retaliation), tortious interference and civil conspiracy; CVR defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court (1) denied CVR’s motion to dismiss CVR as a potential joint employer (permitting discovery), (2) denied dismissal of the wrongful-discharge claim based on workers’ comp retaliation, (3) found the tortious-interference challenge moot as that claim targets Hess Clinic, and (4) denied dismissal of the civil-conspiracy claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CVR Energy is a proper defendant as a joint employer	Post alleges CVR drafted/sent the termination letter and exercised control over employment terms	CVR says no factual basis shows it was Post's employer	Denied: allegations plausibly show joint-employer status; fact-intensive and for discovery
Whether wrongful discharge claim (public policy) based on workers' comp retaliation survives	Post contends termination followed his workers' compensation claim	CVR contends statutory remedies supplant common-law claim and the complaint is ambiguous	Denied: court accepts claim is based on workers' comp retaliation and allows it to proceed
Whether tortious interference claim should be dismissed	Post clarifies the claim is only against Hess Clinic (not CVR)	CVR moves to dismiss interference claim against them for lack of interference allegations	Moot as to CVR because claim is directed at Hess Clinic
Whether civil conspiracy claim survives absent an underlying tort	Post asserts workers' comp retaliation supplies underlying tort	CVR argues only statutory violations alleged or raises reply-only arguments	Denied: workers' comp retaliation can satisfy the underlying-tort requirement; additional reply arguments not considered

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2006) (accept factual allegations and reasonable inferences at pleading stage)
Bristol v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Cnty. of Clear Creek, 312 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2002) (joint-employer inquiry centers on significant control over employment terms)
Brown v. Daikin Am. Inc., 756 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2014) (entity integration/joint-employer questions are factual)
Schoenholz v. Hinzman, 295 Kan. 786 (Kan. 2012) (statutory remedies may supplant common-law claims)
Campbell v. Husky Hogs, LLC, 292 Kan. 225 (Kan. 2011) (workers' compensation retaliation can be treated as a tort)
Lynch v. Barrett, 703 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2013) (courts generally will not consider arguments raised first in a reply brief)
Brokers’ Choice of Am., Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc., 861 F.3d 1081 (10th Cir. 2017) (documents referred to in complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss)