United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Bissoon United States District Judge
before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 13), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons that
follow, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
13) will be GRANTED.
18, 2016, Plaintiff Raymond Johnson (“Plaintiff”)
initiated this action by filing a Praecipe for Writ of
Summons in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.
Plaintiff filed an initial Complaint in state court on August
2, 2016, which he served on Defendants on August 4, 2016.
Defendants timely removed this action on August 31, 2016.
(See Doc. 1). Plaintiff filed the operative Amended
Complaint on September 29, 2016, in response to a Motion to
Dismiss filed by Defendants. (Doc. 11).
Amended Complaint alleges that, on July 13, 2015, while he
was working as a member of Glassport Borough's road crew,
he was in a vehicle accident. (Doc. 11 ¶¶ 7-8).
According to Plaintiff, following the accident, Councilwoman
Elaina Skiba ordered Glassport Police Department Chief
Clifford LaFever to transport Plaintiff to Jefferson Hospital
for a blood draw. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-11).
Plaintiff alleges that he “questioned this, as 3 prior
incidents that [he] was aware of, no one was ever taken for
testing.” (Id. at ¶ 12). However, Chief
LeFever told Plaintiff that, “after discussing the
matter with Councilwoman Skiba, ” he believed he had
“no choice” but to take Plaintiff to Jefferson
Hospital for a blood draw. (Id. at ¶ 13).
Plaintiff alleges that Jefferson Hospital refused to perform
a blood test, and that Councilwoman Skiba thereafter directed
Police Chief LaFever to take Plaintiff to MedExpress in
Pleasant Hills, where urine and breathalyzer tests were
performed. (Id. at ¶¶ 14-16). Plaintiff
alleges that, the day after the tests were performed, he
asked Councilwoman Skiba “why he was forced to go for a
test” and she responded that “this is a random
test” and that he was “lucky [he] passed the drug
test.” (Id. at ¶¶ 17-20). Plaintiff
alleges that the results of the drug test were shared with
Police Chief LaFever. (Id. at ¶ 38). Plaintiff
further alleges that, at some point thereafter, he was
subjected to retaliatory acts, “such as being refused
vacation time.” (Id. at ¶¶ 24, 60).
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is a member of
the Teamsters Local Union No. 205 (the “Union”).
(Id. at ¶ 41). At the time of the alleged drug
test, the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”)
between Glassport and the Union had expired. (Id. at
¶ 42). However, as Plaintiff alleges, while Glassport
and the Union were negotiating a new contract, they were
operated under the “status quo.” (Id. at
¶ 43). The applicable CBA contains a “Drug and
Alcohol Testing Policy, ” which provides, in relevant
The Borough of Glassport believes that a drug and alcohol
free workplace is essential to the welfare of its employees
and the general public. It is the policy of the Borough of
Glassport to test for drug and alcohol abuse when there is
probable cause to believe that an employee is involved with
or under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the workplace.
In addition, each employee may be subject to up to two (2)
mandatory drug and alcohol tests administered on a random
basis each calendar year. Testing by the state for CDL
licensure or by the Borough for cause shall count toward an
individual's mandatory drug testing obligation for the
remainder of the calendar year.
All test results will be strictly confidential. Results will
be reported to the President of Council. Test results will
not be discussed with any borough employee.
(Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13), Exhibit B, at
alleges that, three days after the accident, on July 16,
2015, he filed a grievance with Glassport pursuant to the
terms of the CBA. (Doc. 11 ¶¶ 22, 47; see
also Doc. 13, Exhibit C). Plaintiff claims that, on
September 5, 2015, he “was informed that the mediator
would not take action against the Borough until such time as
the Borough establishes a policy in relation to this
matter.” (Doc. 11 ¶ 48). Plaintiff further avers
that he “made future attempts to resolve the matter
through the Union on at least December 23, 2015 and January
7, 2016, to no avail.” (Doc. 11 ¶ 49). Finally,
Plaintiff claims, that, “[s]ubsequent to the testing,
and following the filing of a grievance on July 16, 2015, on
September 5, 2015, a letter from Borough of Glassport's
Solicitor, Gary Matta was sent to the Attorney for Teamsters
Local 205, Anthony DeLuca, indicating that The Borough of
Glassport was not going to take any action regarding the
accident against Raymond Johnson. The letter further
indicates that no Borough employee will be taken for blood
testing following an accident “until such time as the
Borough establishes a policy in relation to this
matter.” (Id. at ¶ 20).
Amended Complaint sets forth five causes of action against
Defendants: (1) Count I - Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for Invasion of Privacy, Intrusion of Solitude, and
Unreasonable Search and Seizure against all Defendants; (2)
Count II - Negligence against all Defendants; (3) Count III -
Breach of Contract against Glassport; (4) Count IV -
Conspiracy against all Defendants; and (5) Count V -
Retaliation against all Defendants. (Id. at
¶¶ 25-62). Defendants have moved to ...