Steele v. Stallion Rockies Ltd.
106 F. Supp. 3d 1205
D. Colo.2015Background
- Robert Steele, a truck driver for Stallion Rockies, alleged he was 47 and had lumbar degenerative disc disease; he used medical marijuana and was listed in Colorado’s medical marijuana registry.
- In March 2013 a third-party drug test produced indeterminate results for Steele; he was asked to retake the test under observation, reminded management he was a registered medical marijuana patient, and was then fired for violating Stallion’s Drug and Alcohol Policy.
- Steele sued asserting age discrimination (ADEA), disability discrimination (ADA), parallel Colorado claims (CADA), and breach of implied contract based on the employer handbook. Defendants moved to dismiss.
- Magistrate Judge Wang recommended dismissal of all claims for failure to state plausible claims; the district court conducted de novo review, considered Steele’s objections, and affirmed the recommendation.
- The court dismissed Steele’s federal claims with prejudice but declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law contract claim and dismissed the case in its entirety (order notes dismissal without prejudice in closing language).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for pleading discrimination (motion to dismiss) | Wang applied trial/evidentiary burden instead of Twombly/Iqbal; Steele says he need not plead prima facie case | Court may consult claim elements to test plausibility; Twombly/Iqbal governs pleadings | Court: Magistrate properly applied Twombly/Iqbal and used legal elements (per Khalik) to assess plausibility |
| Causation for ADEA claim ("but-for" vs. "factor that made a difference") | Steele: age need not be sole cause; alleged comments and workforce composition show age motivated firing | Stallion: pleaded facts point to marijuana policy enforcement and strained relationships, not age | Court: Jones’s formulation (age must be factor that made a difference) was correctly applied; Steele alleged no nexus between age-related remarks and termination, so ADEA claim implausible |
| ADA disability and causation | Steele: had diagnosed lumbar disease, was on restricted/light duty, management knew; termination tied to disability/medical status | Stallion: Steele didn’t plead that impairment substantially limited a major life activity or that termination was because of disability rather than policy enforcement | Court: Steele failed to allege a qualifying disability or facts showing termination because of disability; use of medical marijuana does not immunize employee from lawful enforcement of workplace drug policy |
| Breach of implied contract (handbook/policy) | Steele: Policy did not prohibit lawful prescribed use; he complied and was terminated in breach | Stallion: Handbook disclaims contractual obligations and confirms at-will employment; Policy is noncontractual description of rules | Court: Policy/handbook do not create an implied promise of continued employment; at-will disclaimers and acknowledgments defeat contract claim; district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir.) (dismissal without leave to amend appropriate when amendment would be futile)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (courts may look to elements of claim to test plausibility under Twombly/Iqbal)
- Jones v. Oklahoma City Pub. Schs., 617 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2010) (ADEA: age must be the factor that made a difference; need not be sole cause)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court) (ADEA disparate-treatment requires but-for causation)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (Supreme Court) (ADA: impairment must substantially limit a major life activity)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court) (framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Medlock v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 608 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir.) (age-related statements must be from decisionmaker and linked to adverse action)
- Geras v. International Bus. Machines Corp., 638 F.3d 1311 (10th Cir.) (employee handbook language that is descriptive and contains disclaimers does not create enforceable contract)