Opinion
Civil No. 98-2217 (JRT/RLE).
February 21, 2001.
Peter J. Nickitas, NICKITAS LAW OFFICE, Superior, WI, for plaintiff.
James E. Knutson and John J. O'Donnell, KNUTSON, FLYNN, DEANS OLSEN, Mendota Heights, MN, for defendants Independent School District 97 and Nancy E. Kaldor.
James R. Andreen, ERSTAD RIEMER, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for defendant Art Forse.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson dated July 7, 2000. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Art Forse's motion to dismiss him as a defendant from this lawsuit be granted. The Court has conducted a de novo review of plaintiff's objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and D. Minn. LR 72.1(c)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and grants Forse's motion to dismiss.
Forse's co-defendants, ISD 97 and Nancy Kaldor, join in Forse's motion.
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of events relating to a drug test taken during plaintiff's employment as a school bus driver for defendant, Independent School District No. 97 ("ISD 97"). After being randomly selected to undergo drug testing, plaintiff provided an amount of urine below the amount required by applicable federal regulations. Although the sample tested negative, plaintiff was suspended for failing to provide an adequate urine sample. Plaintiff refused to provide a second sample and he filed a grievance with his union. Plaintiff demanded a copy of his personnel records and a copy of his drug test. Plaintiff claims that ISD 97 failed to provide him with a copy of the requested records.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against ISD 97 and Kaldor asserting numerous causes of action, including claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101-12213, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701-751, the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Minn Stat. §§ 363.01-363.20 and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ("MGDPA"), Minn. Stat. §§ 13.01 — 13.99.
Subsequent to filing his original complaint and after the time for amending pleadings had expired, plaintiff learned that two other individuals, Art Forse and Lori Beamer, had disclosed certain information regarding his drug test to third parties. In a motion before the Magistrate Judge, plaintiff sought leave of court to amend his complaint to add claims relating to these parties' statements and to add Art Forse as a defendant. The Magistrate Judge permitted plaintiff to assert claims involving Beamer's statement but denied plaintiff's request to add claims regarding Forse's statements and to add Forse as a defendant. This Court subsequently reversed the Magistrate Judge's order with respect to plaintiff's motion to add Forse as a defendant. Following this Court's Order, plaintiff amended his complaint to join Forse as a defendant claiming that Forse violated the MGDPA when he told other individuals at a local bar in Moose Lake, Minnesota that plaintiff refused to take a drug test. Plaintiff seeks monetary and equitable relief from Forse as compensation for his statutory violation.
Forse now moves to be dismissed from this lawsuit pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Forse claims that plaintiff is not entitled to monetary damages or injunctive relief from him because the MGDPA entitles a plaintiff to such relief only against "a political subdivision, responsible authority, statewide system, or state agency." Minn. Stat. § 13.08., subds. 1-2 (1998). Plaintiff concedes that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.08, subd. 1, he cannot obtain a monetary award against Forse in his individual capacity. However, plaintiff claims that Minn. Stat. § 13.08, subd. 2 of the MGDPA empowers the Court to issue individual injunctive relief against "any person," including Forse. This section provides that:
Minn. Stat. § 13.08, subd. 1 provides, in relevant part:
[A] political subdivision, responsible authority, statewide system, or state agency which violates any provision of this chapter is liable to a person or representative of a decedent who suffers any damage as a result of the violation, and the person damaged or a representative in the case of private data on decedents or confidential data on decedents may bring an action against the political subdivision, responsible authority, statewide system or state agency to cover any damages sustained, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees . . . .
A political subdivision, responsible authority, statewide system or state agency which violates or proposes to violate this chapter may be enjoined by the district court. The court may make any order or judgment as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practices which violate this chapter.
(Emphasis added.) The Magistrate Judge disagreed with plaintiff's broad interpretation of the statute. Focusing on the second sentence of the above-quoted provision, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the legislature limited a court's discretionary authority to enjoin individuals to situations where it is necessary to do so. In this case, since plaintiff sued ISD 97, any injunction that the Court would issue against it under the first sentence of § 13.08 would apply equally to Forse as an employee. On this basis, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Forse was an unnecessary defendant and accordingly recommended that he be dismissed as a defendant from this action. The matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must accept as true, in a hypothetical sense, all of the factual claims of the complaint, and must view those facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, in this case the plaintiff. See Anderson v. Franklin County, 192 F.3d 1125, 1131 (8th Cir. 1999). In treating the factual allegations of a complaint as true, the Court "do[es] not, however, blindly accept the legal conclusions drawn by the pleader from the facts." Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990).
B. Injunctive Relief
The statutory language of Minn. Stat. § 13.08, subd. 2 permits a court to order individual injunctive relief. The second sentence of subdivision 2 provides that "a court may make any order or judgment as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practices which violate this chapter." (Emphasis added.) However, even though the statute allows for individual injunctive relief, the Court does not agree with plaintiff that Forse must remain as a party-defendant to this lawsuit. The situation here is unlike that in Crowell v. McConnell, C588-732 (Minn. Fifth Judicial Dist. Ct., Oct. 13, 1988), where a non-employee was joined as an individual defendant of the lawsuit because there was no other way for the court to issue individual injunctive relief against her. Minn. Stat. § 13.08, subd. 2. In this case, plaintiff has already sued Forse's employer, ISD 97. Therefore, any injunction issued against the school district can be adequately tailored to apply to Forse individually as an employee of the district. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d) (stating that an order granting an injunction is binding not only on parties to the action, but also on their "officers, agents, servants and employees"). For these reasons, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and grants Forse's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff's concern that an injunction might not cover Forse should he stop working for the school district is negated by the fact that the injunction can be written to apply to former employees of ISD 97.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, the submissions of the parties, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES plaintiff's objections [Docket No. 69] and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 68]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
1. Defendant Forse's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Docket No. 55] is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Art Forse are DISMISSED, with prejudice.