Robert Landon v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

рroceedings for further ample with no- the District Court vided these three defendants person- opinion. with this suing them in their consistent tice that she was points capacities. Egerdahl also out al Kuznik, response

in to the motions of her

Schmidt, § and Krause to dismiss her claims, § District she asked the complaint as

Court to construe her amended

seeking damages from the defendants in Egerdahl contends personal capacities.

their request provided the defendants reject argu-

with sufficient notice. We both LANDON, Appellant, Robert requires plaintiffs that а com- ments. Nix plaint contain a clear statement of her wish v. personal capacities. in to sue defendants their cryptic plaintiffs hint in a Neither a com- AIRLINES, NORTHWEST response in plaint nor a statement made INC., Appellee. is sufficient. motion dismiss No. 95-1529. Egerdahl argues that also Appeals, United States Court permitting District Court erred not her to Eighth Circuit. by amending correct her omission her com plaint whether a second time. The decisiоn 18, Submitted Oct. 1995. party complaint to allow a to amend her “is Decided Dec. left to the sound discretion of the district Humphreys v. courts.” Roche Biomedical Inc., (8th

Laboratories, 990 F.2d

Cir.1993). may district court refuse to A

grant plaintiff amend if the ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍had an leave to opportunity

earlier to cure a defect her

complaint Wright, but failed to do so. Miller Kane,

& Federal Practice and Procedure (2d 1990); see, e.g.,

§ at 643-45 ed. (5th Ayres,

Smith

Cir.1988). Egerdahl opportuni had such an

ty complaint when she amended her the first Moreover, days Egerdahl

time. six before complaint, her Kuznik

amended and Schmidt

filed a motion to dismiss which cited Nix and and, thus,

DeYoung Egerdahl informed how personal capac

to sue the defendants in their light Egerdahl’s diligence, lack of

ities.

we do not think that the District Court by denying

abused its discretion her leave to complaint her

amend second time.

IV. reasons,

For affirm District these we § Egerdahl’s dismissal of

Court’s claims, equal-protection but re- Egerdahl’s

verse its dismissal of Title VI and IX

Title claims. We remand this cause to

623 of those two claims and dismissal trial,

remand them

BACKGROUND Landon, Appellant, Robert is an African- by appеllee, American male hired Northwest (NWA), Equipment Airlines as an Services (ESE) Employee September As an ESE, loaded, unloaded, and cleaned employed pursu- NWA aircraft. Landon was bargaining agreement ant to a between NWA and the International Association of Machinists. Schaefer, Minneapolis, P. Lawrence ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍(Paul Minnesota, Sprenger, argued C. James 2,1992, unloading On March Landon was a brief), for Lang, on the

A. Jones and Jane airрlane conveyer-belt a ma- using appellant. During unloading, steering chine. Minnesota, Minneapolis, caught wheel of the belt loader on the air- Holloway, F. Jean brief), (Bianca Zick, appel- cargo-bay for craft door and broke the door han- argued on the reported dle. Landon the incident his lee. supervisor, Aponte. immediate Robin HEANEY, HANSEN, FAGG, Before inspected damage Aponte and told Lan- Judges. Circuit assignment. don to to his next proceed Aponte during a fifteen-minute asserts HEANEY, Judge. Circuit Landon, he noticed that Landon interview Landon, employee for a former Robert eyes, speech, slurred had bloodshot his Airlines, drug and sub- Northwest was tested difficulty understanding Aponte’s ques- had specimen sequently terminated when tions. marijuana positive for metabolites. tested Aponte reported super- the incident to his against em- brought suit his former Landon visors, Steрhen Brice and Clifford Van Leu- ployer in court under various federal federal ven. Brice and Van Leuven then located action. The district court and state causes of that, informed Landon Landon. Van Leuven summary judgment for Northwest ordered the accident was his third of the because Airlines on all claims. year, expect to háve some time off he could respect to Landon’s claims that With drug required be to take a and that he would actions violated federal and Northwest’s Landon claims that and alcohol test. Brice prohibitions on racial discrimination state regulations required him that ad- informed pri- and the California constitutional following the test an accident. ministration of vacy, is we find that there sufficient “non-safety position Landon’s with NWA was genuine a issue of material fact: to create non-safety employ- a sensitive sensitive.” As requiring motivations for. Robert Landon ee, testing only legitimate Lan- basis drug a on the of March to take suspicion of alcohol don was for reasonable presented, on the evidence a 1992. Based or use. juror could find that Northwest’s accompanied then requiring Lan- Brice and Van Leuven proffered business reason for Francisco International pretextual. test was As Landon San don to take the Center, facility indepen- result, Airport а whether the Medical must determine NWA, required Landon was pretext racial dent from where proffered reason was a consent to the test. summary judg- to execute a written discrimination. time, Griglock com- Nurse Thomas inappropriate respect with to Lan- At this ment was form that indicated pleted a medical center of racial discrimination and inva- don’s claims “post-acei- the test was the basis for privacy. We reverse the district sion prima support gave Grigloek a urine sam- tablishment of a facie case to dent.”1 Landon alleged indepen- reasonable inference ple, sealed and sent to an which was illicit reason for the defendant’s action. testing agency provid- in Illinois. After dent (8th Co., Hoy Reich v. Shoe sample, Landon returned to the ing the urine Cir.1994). Ramp suspended Van Leuven Office where following him for the rest of his shift. The A. The Discrimination Claims2 report

day, Leuven instructed Landon to Van regular work schedule. for his suit, racial discrimination plaintiff must first make a facie case specimen tested for mar- Landon’s i) ii) class, protected he is a member of 13, 1994, ijuana metabolites. On March iii) qualified position, he is adverse Leuven informed Landon Brice Van iv) him, against action was taken there is employment discharge notice of that his was some evidence that would аllow the inference consequence terminated as a of the NWA improper motivation. McDonnell See drug policy violation. alcohol and Green, 792, 802, Douglas Corp. v. U.S. alleges that he was tested and 1817, 1824, S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d 668 racially-motivated subsequently pur- fired for as, prima facie burden is not so onerous nor poses. alleges that He further he was not with, it should be conflated the ultimate issue reinstated for the same reasons and retali- rаcially-motivated Davenport action. See Equal Employment Opportunity ation for a Dist., v. Riverview Gardens Sch. 30 F.3d (EEOC) complaint Commission that he had (8th Cir.1994). 944 We find that Landon lodged against brings NWA. Landon suit sufficiently prima a established facie case. 1981; VII, § 42 under 42 U.S.C. Title U.S.C. i) ii) American, Landon is African was a 2000(e) seq.; § Em- et the California Fair iii) ESE, qualified by and was fired NWA. Act, Code, Housing ployment and Cal. Gov’t respect prong, With to the fourth I, § seq.; Art. 12940 et the consti- California presented support has that could evidence right privacy; tutional the San Francisco allegations his that Van Leuven is a racist City County ordinance-based that, discussed, prof as will be NWA’s privacy; public policy. and California Lan- pretextual. fered business reason was While that don further claims statements made require this evidence would not a reasonable Leuven, supervisor, his Van juror appellant, to return verdict for the it suspiсions defamatory. were prong’s is to the fourth mini sufficient meet DISCUSSION requirements allowing mal of some evidence Summary judgment appropriate is improper for an inference of motivation. genuine when there is no issue of material plaintiff Once the makes a moving party judg fact and the is entitled to case, employer facie the burden shifts ment as a matter of law. A material fact legitimate to articulate a business reаson for dispute genuine is if the evidence is sufficient McDonnell, 411 its action. U.S. at jury to allow a reasonable to return verdict ease, S.Ct. at 1824. In this NWA maintains non-moving party. for the review the that it tested Landon based on the reason granting summary judgment de novo. suspicions supervisors able of its that Landon Although summary judgment drugs should was under the influence of or alcohol. sparingly employ dispute be used in the context of There is no that NWA’s reasonable cases, suspicion legitimate ment discrimination v. policy Run constitutes a busi Crawford (8th Cir.1994), yon, 37 Having legitimate F.3d ness reason. articulated a plaintiffs go beyond purpose, evidence must the es- business the burden shifts back to Grigloek putative 1. While could not remember what 2. Landon's suit claims that NWA's dis- test, VII, Brice had said was the basis for the he criminatory actions violated Title 42 U.S.C. testing testified he would have checked the 2000(e) seq., § § et 42 U.S.C. and the suspi- basis stated Brice. The "reasonable Act, Housing Employment California Fair basis, provided op- cion” form as an Code, I, seq. Cal.Gov't Art. et tion, was not checked. supervisors suspicions that the had no a more difficult stan ence plaintiff to meet such, night ar demonstrating that the defendant’s on the of March 1992. As dard: i) pretext for its action was for a ticulated reason evidence is sufficient ii) See St. reject proffered unlawful discrimination. business reason. —— Hicks, U.S. -, Mary’s Honor Ctr. jury For a to return a verdict in 2742, 2748-49, -, 113 S.Ct. appellant, favor of the it would need to find 407, 418 L.Ed.2d provided drug the reason test proffered reason proof that the As only pretext, was not that the actual but appellant to submit to requiring the motivation for the test was for racial dis points pretextual, testing was —Hicks, at -, crimination. U.S. i) following evidence: statements made 2748-50, 113 S.Ct. at 125 L.Ed.2d at 418-19. supervisors on the of the by Landon’s Hicks, however, Suprеme Court in stat being tested as a conse accident that he was “rejection prof ed the defendant’s ii) accident; forms, filed con quence of the reasons, permit fered will the trier of fact test, that fail temporaneously with the to infer the ultimate fact of intentional dis in) suspicions; supervisors’ to indicate the crimination, proof ... [n]o additional of dis supervisors that the did not follow (footnote required.” crimination is Id. suspi prоcedures consistent ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍with reasonable omitted); citation Kobrin v. Univer accord policy prohibits (e.g., although cion (8th Minnesota, sity 702-03 tested for reason employees, who have been Cir.1994) (“[A plaintiff] may overcome sum driving from motorized vehi suspicion, able that, mary judgment by producing evidence until results of their test are re cles believed, if would allow ‘a reasonable turned, supervisors permitted Lan Landon’s reject proffered defendant’s reasons of its following the don to drive home actions.’”). Thus, while verdict for the the fol required and him to return to work appellant only finding can occur after a of iv) asserting day); a affidavit lowing medical discrimination, rejection of the defendant’s marijuana metabolites that the levels of enough is at to proffered reasons law sus by not such that the found the test were — Hicks, finding. at tain such U.S. appellant’s behavior would havе been demon 4, - n. 113 S.Ct. at 2749 n. v) affected; appel strably and affidavits of n. 4. L.Ed.2d at 418-19 stating that Lan lant’s friends and relatives normal on the of don’s behavior was ultimately appellant the must While the accident. jury, light in all of the evi persuade the of dence, motivation for the March 2nd that the response, In offers affidavits NWA bias,3 present the testing was racial supervisors. These affidavits of the three ed, support which could the conclusion by suspicions were aroused assert that their pretextual, suffi proffered the reason was is The appellant’s atypical behavior. defen the summary cient to overcome a motion acting abnormally, but attrib admits to dant judgment. reverse the district we unhappiness regard to his utes behavior summary judgment. court’s order of Reply n. 2. For ing the accident. Brief at 6 summary judgment, prof purposes the the of B. Claim Retaliation light in the fered evidencе must be taken plaintiff. to the most favorable Landon claims that NWA’s refusal him his termination was in a factual to reinstate after Landon’s evidence sketches back- charge alleging the objective suspi- retaliation for EEOC ground which reasonable against important- race discrimination that Landon filed not be aroused. More cions could on March 1992. The district court ly, of and conduct NWA the evidence statements claim on twо supervisors’ purported appellant’s dismissed retaliation inconsistent with the i). separate grounds: it was barred the subjective suspicions support an infer- could discharge, would be the direct result supervisors If NWA tested Landon motivations, discriminatory hold otherwise discriminatory may the action. To NWA not invoke policy justify would invite such behavior. of zero tolerance to Landon's its ii) limitations, there was insuf- 1. The Constitution. statute of and California find ficient evidence for a reasonable to dismissing appellant’s In appellant. privacy claim of an invasion of in violation of retaliatory that the act was Landon claims Constitution, the district court California him, not its deci- NWA’s failure to reinstate drug testing employee held that an based on sion to test or terminate him. As evidence suspicions or alcohol use alleged prior retaliation for a EEOC substantially countеrvailing in furthers claim, points message sent on public safety. employee terest of and We 9,May 1992 from Van Leuven to NWA labor findings review the district state grievance proposal counsel College Regina law de novo. See Salve message stated: reinstate Landon. The Russell, 225, 231, 111 S.Ct. U.S. (1991). 1221, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 positive. point is that Landon tested company investigation, in a Landon lied by analysis, In its the district court complaint an filed EEO passed placed рlaintiff initial on a burden (I against guess). me I do not care about the elements of a demonstrate facie implications the EEO because Landon i) identifiable, specific, privacy case: inter tested and then lied about it. ii) est; expectation a reasonable According appellant, proves that iii) circumstances; under the a serious Landon was not reinstated because of the privacy by invasion of that thе defendant’s complaint. agree. EEOC We do not NCAA, actions. Hill v. 7 Cal.4th 26 Cal. policy positive drug has a clear that a Rptr.2d In 865 P.2d Moreover, in results termination. termi- stead, the district court focused on NWA’s employee only nated is reinstated after he or substantially actions defense its fur problem has admitted that a she exists countervailing thered interests. id. See agrees Appellant to seek treatment. refused analysis, its the district court held that em agree to meet these conditions. with ployee safety, public safety, public confi presented district court the evidence dence safe air travel were sufficient coun support not a claim does of retaliation. tervailing justify potential interests4 to Therefore, we affirm the dismissal privacy resulting invasion of from a “reason retaliation claim. suspicion” agree. able test.5 We Privacy of C. Invasion Claims Implicit within the district court’s order is Appellant drug testing appellant’s po- also claims that the the factual that determination infringement privacy an in adversely impact was of his of sition with could NWA countervailing violation of both the state constitution and a public these interests of safe- city county ty. Appellant argues position and ordinance. that his was cases, however, Although appellant urges adopt prior 4. this court to Both were decided to Hill standard, "compelling interest” the California specifically questioned which their continued via- Supreme irrefutably rejected Court this standard. bility light newly in of its enunciated standard. Hill, 854-56, Cal.Rptr.2d 26 at 865 P.2d at 653- Id. acknowledged 54. While the Hill court the dif arising ferences between its case and one from 5. We the note that district court stated that re- context, employment specifically the it that stated drug quiring a test "either beсause of reasonable "subject those differences would be to the ele suspicion cause of influence or because of [announced], require ments which careful con suspicion damag- employee’s due to the aroused expectations privacy sideration of reasonable of ing airplane during an his second accident in employer, employee, public and interests weeks, substantially sеveral furthers NWA's arising particular in Id. 26 Cal. circumstances.” countervailing interests.” Landon v. Northwest Rptr.2d at 869 n. at 865 P.2d 667 n. 20. Airlines, Inc., 3-93-151, slip op. No. at 11 Pool, Appellant Cal.App.3d cites Semore v. 217 (D.Minn. 30, 1995). (1990), Jan. These alternatives Cal.Rptr. 266 280 and Luck v. Co., merely suggest by Transp. Cal.App.3d bases which Pac. different reason- Southern denied, aroused; Cal.Rptr. suspicion might 618 cert. 498 U.S. able be not it does (1990), propo S.Ct. 112 L.Ed.2d for the problematic suspicionless raise the more issue of "compelling sition that the interest” standard drug testing. applied employment must be in the context. “non-safety by although airport, that the at sensitive” his held which Lan- as characterized such, contract, employed, operated by as he did not don was is owned and employment ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍Francisco, City County of the of safety the and welfare San the pose a threat airport’s County location in Mateo characterizаtion San re- The contractual others. safety, purview the impact public on moves Landon from of the ordi- potential Landon’s however, accept employee: person controlling. the nance’s definition of is not working City County finding of fact that Landon’s within the of San district 3300A.2(1). public was a matter of Francisco. S.F. Police Code employment position governmental powers safety concern. San Francisco Cоunty beyond do not extend its territorial Nevertheless, alleges that property boundaries to it owns. The his was not based invasion of city attorney’s opinion, by appellant cited suspicion, but rather on racial on reasonable proposition city employees the are cov- above, discussed prejudice. For the reasons beyond integ- ered even when the territorial regarding the factual issue motivations the rity сity, specifically opinion of the bases its by still need to be resolved for the application fact that of extraterritorial on the Although burden-shifting the scheme jury. organization question, Fran- San by and Hicks was de- enunciated McDonnell Giants, principal place had its of busi- cisco VII, context of Title its veloped within the city, within ness limits. may beyond Title claims be influence VII discriminatory alleged appropriate where D. Defamation Claims particular In this motivations are at issue.

context, as a de- Landon’s defamation claim is based raises motivation its regarding privacy. on Van Leuven’s statements his to the claim of invasion fense suspicions that the influ analysis might Landon was under be different While claims, drugs alcohol on is the same: ence or two the material issue drug testing Holding March that there was no motivation for what was the evidence of malice could quеstion held that this Landon? We have jury. plaintiff, If return a verdict for the the district by a fact must be determined appellant’s court claim for defama that NWA’s dismissed trier of fact were determine may discriminatory, tion. While there be sufficient evidence motivations were NWA would motivations, discriminatory suspi- to find not be able to assert its “reasonable malice, appropri countervailing and hence the district court policy cion” as a interest. ately appellant’s claim dismissed defamation summary judg- we reverse the given of a test. regards ment with to this issue. We note the district court has made no determi- claim Landon bases his defamation regarding appellant’s prima facie nation supervisor on statements made his case, do not and therefore we review suspi employees other NWA issue.6 essence, cions of Landon’s behavior. In supervisor’s implied that Landon statements 2. The San Francisco Ordinance. drugs. illicit Based on the used test,7 result of the the district court We affirm the district court’s dis appellant’s of claim based on the San found as a factual matter that the missal Ordinance, marijuana. Privacy in fact see no clear Francisco Workers S.F. did use We allega- finding. The truth of the Police Code 3300A. The district court error this Hill, argues light any Although appellant test has a such of a 7. that the 6. of consideration the contin disparate impact facie case will need address based on the amount of mela- law, vitality prior skin, had held ued of case rejected this nin in the the district court employment drug testing violated the Cali that fornia Constitution. See assertion, appellant's expert noting admitted Hill, Cal.Rptr.2d 26 at merely theory hypothesis without that the was 20, Additionally, at 20. 869 n. 865 P.2d 667 n. any scientific corroboration. consent, impact of Landon's which was con circumstances, sidered in Hitt under different would need to considered. be 628 defamation,

tions, genuine of fact as to provides raising issues material in the context of proffered testing Lundquist v. Reus whether NWA’s reason an absolute defense. See ser, 776, Cal.Rptr.2d pretextual Landon was and whether NWA’s 7 31 779- Cal.4th actual reason was racial discrimination. The n. P.2d 1282 n. 5 Therefore, grant summary judgment in of NWA court’s dis of favor we affirm the distriсt therefore erroneous. was missal of the defamation claim. Policy

E. Public Claims

Finally, argues that his dis

charge public policy. The violates California court dismissed this claim. Califor

district

nia courts have determined that state ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍legislature intended the California

California Act, Employment Housing

Fair Cal. 12900-12996, §§ ELLIS, one of the three Gov’t Code In re Ronald Debtor. underlying Landon’s discrimination bases ELLIS, Appellee, Susan claim, remedy to be the sole for discriminato Lindsay ry discharge. v. Olive See Cook (9th Cir.1990) Growers, 233, 238 ELLIS, Aрpellant. Ronald Co., 144 (citing v. A.L. Randall Cal. Strauss (1983) 514, 519-21, App.3d Cal.Rptr. 520 No. 95-1020. Corp., and Ficalora v. Lockheed 193 Cal. Appeals, United States Court (1987)). App.3d Cal.Rptr. Eighth Circuit. reject are bound California case law to Therefore, affirm this cause of action. we May Submitted 1995. district dismissal of this claim. Decided Dec.

CONCLUSION supervisors’

NWA claims that its decision require Robert Landon to submit to test was motivated their reasonable

suspicions that Landon was under the influ- drugs pre-

ence or alcohol. The evidence is sufficient for a

sented

reject justification pretextual. as For

the claims for which motivations are issue,

a material must determine this

question of fact. we reverse the granting summary judg-

district court’s respect

ment with to the claims of racial

discrimination and violation the state con- privacy.

stitutional We affirm the

district court’s dismissal of Landon’s claims retaliation, invasion of in violation ordinance,

of San Francisco’s defa-

mation, public policy. and violation of hereby

case is court remanded district proceedings opinion. consistent with this

HANSEN, Judge, concurring. Circuit opinion

I concur with our court’s I because

believe offered sufficient evidence

Case Details

Case Name: Robert Landon v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Dec 18, 1995

Citation: 72 F.3d 620

Docket Number: 95-1529

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.