Amarosa v. Doctor John's et al, No. 2:2011cv00676 - Document 123 (D. Utah 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 99 Motion to Dismiss Party John Coil. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 7/25/14 (alt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION HANNAH R. AMAROSA, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS JOHN COIL Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:11-CV-676 DN DOCTOR JOHN S INC., KEN GREENTREE and JOHN COIL, District Judge David Nuffer Defendants. Defendants Doctor John s, Inc. and John Coil filed a motion 1 requesting dismissal of John Coil, an individual defendant. They assert that John Coil is not a subject of the remaining cause of action, which alleges violation of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA). 2 The motion is denied. DISCUSSION John Coil was specifically mentioned by name in Plaintiff s second cause of action for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act 3 and in Plaintiff s third cause of action for defamation. 4 Both those claims have been dismissed. 5 Plaintiff s first cause of action for violation of the EPPA pleads for relief and judgment against the Defendants . . . . 6 While the 1 Motion to Dismiss Second Cause of Action, docket no. 99, filed July 17, 2014. 2 29 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq. 3 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. 4 Complaint at 12-13, ¶¶ 73, 75, 77, 79, and 81-82, docket no. 2, filed July 22, 2011. 5 Memorandum Decision and Order [dismissing Plaintiff s Third Cause of Action for Defamation], docket no. 84, filed July 2, 2014; docket text order, docket no. 113, filed July 21, 2014. 6 Complaint at 11. cause of action does not include his name, the first cause of action pleads for relief against John Coil. Under the EPPA, [t]he term employer includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee or prospective employee. 7 This has been interpreted broadly, and includes (among others) a person who decided whether the examined employee would be subjected to disciplinary action. 8 Because the proof at trial may show that John Coil affirmed Plaintiff Amarosa s termination, and concealed the polygraph issues related to her termination, 9 he may qualify as an employer under the EPPA. Of course, the proof at trial will determine whether this issue will be submitted to the jury. ORDER Because the first cause of action pleads for relief against John Coil and because the EPPA is broad enough to permit a claim to be stated against Coil, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss John Coil 10 is DENIED. Dated July 25, 2014. BY THE COURT: ____________________________ David Nuffer United States District Judge 7 29 U.S.C. § 2001(2). 8 Calbillo v. Cavender Oldsmobile, Inc., 288 F.3d 721, 727 (5th Cir. 2002). 9 Complaint ¶¶ 46, 75, 77 and 82. 10 Motion to Dismiss Second Cause of Action, docket no. 99, filed July 17, 2014. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
