640 F. App'x 567
8th Cir.2016Background
- Olson, a Minnesota resident, accepted a job with Push (a Wisconsin corporation) and took a pre-employment drug test at a Minnesota clinic before starting work in West Virginia.
- The test was reported as “diluted”; Push treated that as a positive result and terminated Olson after five days.
- Olson sued in Minnesota state court under the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (DATWA), alleging Push violated DATWA’s requirements for confirmatory testing and counseling before discharge.
- Push removed the case to federal court based on diversity; the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, holding DATWA’s term “doing business in [Minnesota]” should be read to require a nexus between the employer’s Minnesota business and the employment/drug testing at issue.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo, concluded DATWA’s plain statutory definition of “employer” unambiguously includes entities that “do[] business in” Minnesota, and held DATWA applied to Push given its Minnesota contacts (conducting business there and use of a Minnesota clinic).
- The court remanded, noting DATWA’s reach is subject to due-process limits but that Minnesota had sufficient contacts to permit application here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DATWA’s definition of “employer” includes entities that do any business in Minnesota even when the employment/test occurs out-of-state | Olson: DATWA’s plain definition covers any person/entity doing business in Minnesota; Push falls within that definition | Push: “Doing business” should be limited to business relevant to the tested employment (i.e., require a nexus between Minnesota business and testing/employment) | DATWA’s plain, broad definition of “employer” includes entities doing business in Minnesota; no nexus requirement read into statute |
| Whether the district court may narrow DATWA to avoid absurd or unjust results | Olson: Plain language controls; statute is remedial and should be construed liberally in favor of employee protections | Push: Broad application would produce absurd or impractical results given other statutory obligations | Court: No absurdity; clear legislative purpose supports broad application and court will not add limiting words absent legislative language |
| Whether Minnesota’s DATWA can constitutionally be applied here (due process / extraterritoriality concerns) | Olson: Minnesota has significant contacts (Push does business in MN; hired MN resident; test performed in MN) supporting application | Push: Application to out-of-state employment risks extra‑territorial reach and due-process problems | Court: DATWA application here consistent with due-process limits given significant contacts; not barred by presumption against extra‑territoriality or dormant Commerce Clause |
| Whether Olson stated a claim under DATWA sufficient to survive dismissal | Olson: Complaint alleges failure to obtain confirmatory test and counseling before termination | Push: DATWA shouldn’t apply, so claim fails as a matter of law | Court: Reversed dismissal; Olson’s DATWA claim may proceed and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bluhm, 676 N.W.2d 649 (Minn. 2004) (plain statutory language governs interpretation)
- Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 2010) (courts must not add words to a statute that the legislature omitted)
- Rohmiller v. Hart, 811 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 2012) (reluctance to ignore clear statutory language to avoid absurd results)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302 (1981) (state law application constrained by contacts/due process)
- McCluney v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 649 F.2d 578 (8th Cir. 1981) (contacts supporting application of forum law make its control unquestionable)
- Cotto Waxo Co. v. Williams, 46 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 1995) (presumption against extra-territorial application and dormant Commerce Clause considerations)