915 N.W.2d 674
N.D.2018Background
- David A. Ramirez worked at Walmart in Jamestown and was terminated on April 18, 2017.
- Ramirez sued Walmart under North Dakota’s retaliatory discharge statute, N.D.C.C. § 34-01-20, alleging he was fired for complaining to supervisors that other employees’ terminations were "unfair."
- Ramirez filed suit 178 days after termination; the statute of limitations for § 34-01-20 claims is 180 days.
- Walmart moved to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing Ramirez did not plead that his complaints reported any violation of law (i.e., protected activity).
- The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim; by the time of decision the 180-day limitations period had expired.
- Ramirez appealed; the Supreme Court considered both appealability (given the dismissal without prejudice) and the sufficiency of the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dismissal without prejudice was appealable | Ramirez argued he could appeal the dismissal | Walmart implicitly argued dismissal was not appealable (or did not prevent appealability defense) | Dismissal was appealable because the statutory 180-day limitations period expired before the district court's decision, foreclosing relief in the chosen forum |
| Whether Ramirez pleaded a retaliatory discharge claim under § 34-01-20 | Ramirez argued his complaints about "serial dismissals" were protected activity supporting a retaliatory discharge claim | Walmart argued Ramirez failed to allege reporting of an actual or suspected violation of law or regulation, so his complaints were not protected activity | Affirmed dismissal: Ramirez failed to plead that he reported illegalities; complaints that terminations were merely "unfair" are not protected activity under the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- James Vault & Precast Co. v. B&B Hot Oil Serv., Inc., 908 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 2018) (dismissal without prejudice is appealable when the statute of limitations has run)
- Martin v. Marquee Pacific, LLC, 906 N.W.2d 65 (N.D. 2018) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and de novo review)
- Nandan, LLP v. City of Fargo, 858 N.W.2d 892 (N.D. 2015) (construing complaints in plaintiff’s favor on Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Brandvold v. Lewis & Clark Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 161, 803 N.W.2d 827 (N.D. 2011) (same)
- Dahlberg v. Lutheran Soc. Servs., 625 N.W.2d 241 (N.D. 2001) (elements of a prima facie retaliatory discharge claim and that statute protects reports of illegality)
- Jacob v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 693 N.W.2d 604 (N.D. 2005) (§ 34-01-20 prohibits discharge for reporting illegalities)
- Trade ‘N Post, L.L.C. v. World Duty Free Americas, Inc., 628 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 2001) (distinguishing unfair conduct from illegal conduct)
- Vandall v. Trinity Hosps., 676 N.W.2d 88 (N.D. 2004) (discussing the limitations period under § 34-01-20)