Opinion
Case No. 2:03CV00616 PGC
December 1, 2003
Mr. Stephen W. Cook, Esq., STEPHEN W COOK PC, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, for Plaintiff
ELISABETH R. BLATTNER, JEFFREY J. DROUBAY, PARSONS BEHLE LATIMER, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant
This matter came on for oral argument on October 29, 2003 on Defendant Neways, Inc.'s ("Neways") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action and to Dismiss a Portion of Plaintiffs' Second Cause of Action. Plaintiffs were represented by Stephen W. Cook of Stephen W. Cook P.C., defendant Neways was represented by Elisabeth R. Blattner of Parsons Behle Latimer, defendant A Plus Benefits of SLC, Inc. was represented by James L. Ahlstrom of Parr Waddoups Brown Gee Loveless, and defendant Altius Health Plans, Inc. was represented by Daniel Steele of Bennett Tueller Johnson Deere.
Having thoroughly read and duly considered the papers filed by the parties, having heard and duly considered the parties' oral arguments, and having been fully apprised in the facts and in the law, the Court HEREBY FINDS, ADJUDGES, ORDERS AND DECREES:
First Cause of Action (ADA Claim)
1. Neways' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to plaintiffs' First Cause of Action.
2. Plaintiff Melanie Holt does not dispute that she failed to file a charge of discrimination as to her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim within the 300 day period mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).
3. The doctrine of equitable tolling cannot be applied to Plaintiff Melanie Holt's failure to timely file a charge of discrimination because under Mascheroni v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Cal., 28 F.3d 1554, 1562 (10th Cir. 1994) (abrogated on other grounds) andMatthews v. Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., 54 F. Supp.2d 1067, 1074 (D. Utah 1999), this extraordinary doctrine may only be applied to an ADA or Title VII claim when there has been active deception of the claimant regarding procedural prerequisites. Based upon the allegations of plaintiffs' Complaint, no such deception occurred in this case.
4. Because plaintiffs' ADA cause of action is not based upon a timely-filed charge of discrimination with the UALD or EEOC, plaintiffs are barred from asserting it.
5. Thus, plaintiffs' First Cause of Action is dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants.
Second Cause of Action (ERISA Claim)
6. Neways' Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' Second Cause of Action is DENIED insofar as it relates to plaintiffs' ERISA § 510 ( 29 U.S.C. § 1140) Claim.
7. The Court finds that plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth allegations sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under ERISA § 510.
8. Plaintiffs are ordered to amend their Complaint to make it clear that they are not seeking to maintain any ERISA claims outside of ERISA § 510.
9. To the extent that Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks to maintain an ERISA claim apart from their ERISA § 510 claim, Neways' Motion to Dismiss is granted as to all defendants.
Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action (Common Law Tort Claims)
10. Neways' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action.
11. These common law tort claims are preempted by ERISA under 29 U.S.C. § 144(a) and the United States Supreme Court's decision inIngersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (1990), because they relate to an employee benefit plan that is covered by ERISA.
12. Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action is dismissed as against all defendants without prejudice; plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to amend to assert a wrongful discharge claim that is not preempted by ERISA.
13. Plaintiffs' Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action are dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants.
14. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees related to Neways' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action and to Dismiss a Portion of Plaintiffs' Second Cause of Action.