Court Cases Court Cases
AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV 
NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY  EO  NR  PR  DC  US 
 
View Case Details
 
WILLIAM MONROE JR. et al. Plaintiffs
vs.
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS INC. et al. Defendants
 
Case:
No. 86-2498C(6)
 
Location:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DIVISION
 
Date:
March 2, 1987, Decided
 
Attorneys:
Elbert Dorsey Collier Dorsey & Edwards for Plaintiffs. Raymond Beagle Jr. Gage & Tucker Charles McCarter Gage & Tucker for Defendants.
 

MEMORANDUM

In November 1986 plaintiffs William Monroe Jr. and Ezell Wright lost their positions as supervisory employees of defendant Consolidated Freightways Inc. (Consolidated) after refusing to submit to a drug test administered by the company. Consolidated required the test of the thirty-seven supervisory employees at its Riverview Missouri terminal. Of these thirty-two took the test and passed and three recently hired employees relied on the negative results of tests administered at the time of their application for employment. On December 1 1986 plaintiffs unsuccessfully petitioned the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis for a temporary Restraining Order enjoining defendant from administering drug tests to its supervisory personnel. The Circuit Court set the cause for a preliminary injunction hearing on December 15 1986. On December 12 1986 defendants removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441(b) invoking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1332.

Both plaintiffs in this action are citizens of Missouri as is defendant Bogle. While this lack of diversity between the parties would ordinarily defeat the jurisdiction of this Court Defendant argue that plaintiffs improperly joined defendant Bogle and hence that Court should not consider his citizenship in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the action. See generally 14A C. Wright & A. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure SEC. 3723 (1985). Defendant Consolidated is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Delaware.

In order to prove fraudulent joinder the removing party must show either that there is no possibility that the plaintiff would be able to establish a cause of action against the in-state defendant in state court; or that there has been outright fraud in the plaintiff's pleading of jurisdictional facts.

B. Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co. 663 F.2d 545 549 (5th Cir. 1981) (emphasis in original).

Defendants have not alleged fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts; therefore the sole issue before this Court is whether plaintiffs have stated a basis for recovery against defendant Bogle under Missouri law. Anderson v. Home Insurance Co. 724 F.2d 82 84 (8th Cir. 1983); Miller 663 F.2d at 549. Defendants bear the burden of proof on this issue Coker v. Amoco Oil Co. 709 F.2d 1433 (11th Cir. 1983) and all contested fact issues must be resolved in favor of plaintiffs. Miller 663 F.2d at 549. In ruling on the issue Court may consider the pleadings supporting affidavits and the motion for remand and supporting affidavits. Coker 709 F.2d at 1440.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that defendant Bogle informed them of their termination from employment at Consolidated. The complaint contains no allegations concerning defendant Bogle's position at Consolidated. Plaintiffs' motion to remand suggests that Bogle's actions were "not necessarily within the boundary of his job title or position"; however Court deems this inadequate to counter the sworn affidavit of defendant Bogle in which he attests that at the time of the events giving rise to this suit he was the Terminal Manager of the Riverview Consolidation Center of Consolidated Freightways Motor Freight in St. Louis with oversight responsibilities for terminal operations. Defendant Bogle attests that his actions with regard to personnel at the terminal were undertaken solely in this capacity as agent of Consolidated.

Plaintiffs have provided Court with no rebuttal evidence in support of their motion to remand. Plaintiffs do not allege that Mr. Bogle instituted the policy of drug testing at Consolidated or that he had any independent authority to terminate their employment. Mr. Bogle's affidavit demonstrates that whatever action he took against plaintiffs he took as an agent of and at the instance of Consolidated. Plaintiffs have failed to allege conduct on the part of defendant Bogle that would entitle them to recovery against him under Missouri law. Plaintiffs' good faith belief that they had a cause of action against defendant Bogle defeats neither his dismissal from the suit for fraudulent joinder nor removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 14A C. Wright & A. Miller Federal Practice & Procedure SEC. 3723 at 354.

For the foregoing reasons this Court finds that defendant Bogle was fraudulently joined and that his citizenship should be discounted in determining the jurisdiction of this Court. As complete diversity exists between plaintiffs and defendant Consolidated jurisdiction is properly invoked under 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1332 and removal from state court was proper under 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441(b). Plaintiffs' motion for remand is accordingly denied.

Plaintiffs' suit against the remaining defendant Consolidated asserts three grounds for recovery: 1) that defendant's institution of a drug-testing policy violated plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 2) that institution of the policy violated plaintiffs' rights under Article One of the Missouri Constitution; and 3) that institution of the policy violated the public policy of the State of Missouri. None of these grounds supports a claim for relief against defendant Consolidated.

Plaintiffs' first and second claims must fail because plaintiffs therein seek redress for purely private conduct. The proscription against unauthorized searches and seizures embodied in both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article One of the Missouri Constitution applies exclusively to government or state action. United States v. Jacobsen 466 U.S. 109 113 80 L. Ed. 2d 85 104 S. Ct. 1652 (1984); Garmon v. Foust 741 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. 1984) (United States Constitution); State v. Overby 432 S.W.2d 277 (Mo. 1968) (Missouri Constitution).

Plaintiffs' third asserted ground for recovery also fails to support a legally cognizable claim. Missouri does not recognize "violation of public policy" as an independent cause of action. Neither does Missouri recognize a cause of action for wrongful discharge based on a violation of public policy. Furthermore this Court would be reluctant to find that efforts to assure a drug-free environment contravened the public policy of the State of Missouri.

Accordingly plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

Dated this 2nd day of March 1987.

ORDER

Pursuant to the memorandum filed herein on this date

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of plaintiffs William Monroe Jr. And Ezell Wright to remand this action to state court be and it is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of defendants Consolidated Freightways Inc. and J.W. Bogle to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a cause of action be and it is granted.