You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Gard Corp.

Citations: 795 F. Supp. 1070; 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11867; 59 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1247Docket: Civ. A. No. 92-2023-L

Court: District Court, D. Kansas; July 29, 1992; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Gard Corporation, alleging racial discrimination against African-American temporary workers, including Wilhelmine Bailey, who were not offered permanent positions as their white counterparts were. Gard sought indemnity from the employment agency, Uniforce, by filing a third-party complaint. Uniforce moved to dismiss this complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion, citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union of America, which precludes statutory or common law rights to contribution or indemnity under Title VII. The court emphasized that under Rule 14(a), a third party cannot be impleaded merely because they might be liable to the plaintiff; a direct claim from the defendant against the third party is required. Gard's argument that both it and Uniforce were 'joint employers' was insufficient to establish a claim for indemnity. Consequently, the court dismissed Gard’s third-party complaint with prejudice, underscoring the lack of a contractual basis for indemnity and Gard's inability to compel the EEOC to pursue claims against Uniforce.

Legal Issues Addressed

Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

Application: Uniforce's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was granted because Gard failed to establish a plausible claim for indemnity or contribution under applicable law.

Reasoning: The court granted Uniforce's motion to dismiss, emphasizing that a claim cannot be dismissed unless it is clear that no facts could support recovery.

Rule 14(a) Impleader Requirements

Application: Gard's attempt to implead Uniforce was dismissed because Rule 14(a) requires a direct claim by the defendant against the third party, which was not present as there was no contractual basis for indemnity between Gard and Uniforce.

Reasoning: Under Rule 14(a), a third party cannot be impleaded solely based on potential liability to the plaintiff; there must be a direct claim by the defendant against the third party.

Third-Party Claims in Title VII Cases

Application: The court ruled that a defendant in a Title VII case cannot seek contribution or indemnity from a third party, as no statutory or common law right exists for such claims under Title VII.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court's decision in Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union of America established that no statutory or common law right to contribution exists under Title VII, a principle that extends to indemnity claims as well.