Bailey v. First Transit Inc.

Background

Jeffrey Bailey and Marlon E. Carter, who represented themselves, brought a second amended complaint against First Transit, Inc.; First Group America Inc.; First Student Inc.; Tim Ogren; Don Johnson; the Metropolitan Council; Teamsters Local 120; and Troy D. Gustafson. The case concerned claims under the National Transit Systems Security Act of 2007 (NTSSA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Minnesota Statutes §§ 181.74 and 268.095, the Federal False Claims Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing all claims against Local 120 and Gustafson. The recommendation also addressed First Transit, First Group, First Student, the Metropolitan Council, Johnson, and Ogren’s motion to dismiss. It recommended allowing only the NTSSA claim against First Transit to proceed and dismissing all other claims. The plaintiffs objected, arguing that they had adequately pleaded their claims and should be permitted to conduct discovery before dismissal of the claims under Minnesota law.

Reasons for the Recommended Dismissals

The recommendation concluded that the NTSSA claims against Local 120, Gustafson, and the Metropolitan Council should be dismissed with prejudice because the plaintiffs had not pleaded sufficient facts showing that Local 120 or Gustafson qualified as covered transportation entities or personnel, or that the Metropolitan Council took an adverse employment action against them. It concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction over the NTSSA claims against First Group, First Student, Johnson, and Ogren because the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies as to those defendants. The recommendation found that the plaintiffs had pleaded enough facts for the NTSSA claim against First Transit to proceed.

The recommendation also concluded that the Title VI claim should be dismissed with prejudice because the plaintiffs did not identify the purpose of the federal funds received by the Metropolitan Council, show that the primary purpose of those funds was employment, or show that employees such as the plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries. It recommended dismissing the Federal False Claims Act claim with prejudice because the plaintiffs did not meet the particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). It recommended dismissing the Section 1981 race-discrimination claim with prejudice because the plaintiffs did not allege a prima facie case or facts supporting an inference of discrimination or retaliation.

The recommendation further concluded that Minnesota Statutes §§ 181.74 and 268.095 did not provide a private cause of action for the alleged violations. It recommended dismissing the Minnesota Whistleblower Act claim with prejudice because it was preempted by the remaining NTSSA claim. It also recommended denying the plaintiffs’ motions seeking denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss as moot.

Court’s Ruling

Judge Donovan W. Frank independently reviewed the record, the report and recommendation, the plaintiffs’ objections, and the defendants’ response. The court found no reason to depart from the magistrate judge’s recommendations and held that they were factually and legally correct.

The court overruled the plaintiffs’ objection and adopted the report and recommendation. It granted Teamsters Local 120 and Troy D. Gustafson’s motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims against them with prejudice. It granted in part and denied in part the motion filed by First Transit, First Group, First Student, the Metropolitan Council, Don Johnson, and Tim Ogren. Specifically, the motion was denied insofar as it sought dismissal of the NTSSA claims against First Transit, Inc., only. All other claims against all other defendants were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs’ motions to deny the motions to dismiss were denied as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.