United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Mark A. Greenman, Esq., Law Office of Mark A. Greenman, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.
Andrew E. Tanick, Esq., and Brian M.W. Cunningham, Esq., Ford & Harrison LLP, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge.
On June 12, 2014, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on Defendant Push, Inc.'s ("Push") Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 5]. Plaintiff Shawn Olson opposes the motion. For the reasons stated herein, Push's motion is granted.
On February 18, 2014, Push, a Wisconsin company, offered Olson employment in West Virginia. Not. of Removal [Docket No. 1] Ex. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 1. Olson, a resident of Minnesota, accepted the offer. Id . On February 24, 2014, Push asked Olson to submit to drug testing at a clinic in Wisconsin. At the time of the request, Olson was in Elk River, Minnesota. For convenience reasons, the parties agreed Olson could take the drug test in Elk River. Olson took the drug test and on February 27, 2014, Olson began working for Push in West Virginia. Id . ¶¶ 3-6.
On March 4, 2014, Push informed Olson that his drug test sample was "too diluted." Push considers a diluted, and thus indeterminate, result to be equal to a positive test result, and thus terminated Olson's employment. See id. ¶ 7.
On March 25, 2014, Olson initiated this action in Hennepin County District Court. See Not. of Removal. Olson alleges Push violated the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act ("DATWA") because Push terminated Olson based on an initial test result. Under DATWA, an employer may not terminate or refuse to hire an employee based on an initial screening result unless the employer verifies the result through a confirmatory test. Minn. Stat. § 181.953, subd. 10.
On April 16, 2014, Push removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On April 22, 2014, Push filed the present motion to dismiss.
A. Motion to Dismiss Standard
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a party may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In evaluating such a motion, the court construes the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the facts alleged in the complaint must be taken as true. Hamm v. Groose , 15 F.3d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). The complaint need not allege facts with "heightened" specificity, but it must include enough facts to move claims "across the line from conceivable to plausible." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible when the plaintiff "pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Also, the court may not consider matters outside the ...