Plaintiff Deborah Malloy sued defendants Trileaf Corporation and T. Scott Muschany in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of wrongful discharge in violation of Missouri public policy, abuse of process, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Defendants moved to dismiss all counts other than the FLSA claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Trileaf Corporation terminated Malloy’s employment as Director of Human Resources on July 25, 2023, after she reported to Trileaf executives and the U.S. Department of Labor that Trileaf misclassified salary-exempt employees and refused to pay overtime. On numerous occasions when Malloy reported these matters to Trileaf’s president, T. Scott Muschany, he locked her in his office against her will, verbally and physically intimidating her. One month after terminating Malloy’s employment, Trileaf filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to recover company property in Malloy’s possession, and the court granted Trileaf’s requested relief on September 20, 2023.
Legal Analysis
Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy: The court construed Malloy’s wrongful discharge claim as a claim under Missouri’s Whistleblower’s Protection Act (WPA). However, the court dismissed the claim because the WPA does not provide a private right of action when a private right of action for damages exists under another statutory scheme, such as the FLSA, which Malloy asserted in Count II of her complaint.
False Imprisonment and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The court rejected Muschany’s arguments that Malloy’s false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were preempted by Missouri’s Worker’s Compensation Law (WCL) and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The court found that Malloy’s allegations could portray deliberate and deviant actions by Muschany that sought to cause or increase the risk of injury, which are not subject to WCL immunity. Additionally, the court concluded that the MHRA did not preempt Malloy’s claims because she did not allege any discriminatory conduct prohibited by the MHRA. The court allowed these claims to proceed.
Abuse of Process: The court dismissed Malloy’s abuse of process claim, finding that Trileaf’s state court litigation against her was not an improper use of process. The court relied on the state court’s preliminary injunction order, which demonstrated that Trileaf had a proper purpose in filing the claim and that its efforts accomplished the purpose for which the process was designed.
The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts I and V, while denying the motion as to Counts III and IV.
Schrag on Law 