Melissa E. Goddard
v.
APG Security-RI, LLC, alias John Doe Corporation et al
Kent
County Superior Court. (KC 14-316). Associate Justice Sarah
Taft-Carter.
For
Plaintiff: David R. Comerford, Esq., Frank R. Saccoccio, Esq.
For
Defendants: Mark A. Pogue, Esq.
Present:
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia,
JJ.
OPINION
Page 174
Suttell, Chief Justice.
Which
period of limitation applies to a civil action alleging a
violation of the employer drug testing statute
(EDTS)[1]--ten years as provided in G.L. 1956
§ 9-1-13(a)[2] or three years as provided in §
9-1-14(b)[3]--is the central question of this
appeal. This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to
an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why
the issue raised in this appeal should not be summarily
decided. After considering the parties' written and oral
submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause
has not been shown and that this case may be decided without
further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in
this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
I
Facts
and Procedural History
On
March 27, 2014, Melissa Goddard (plaintiff) filed a complaint
against APG Security-RI, LLC, as well as against Scott
Hemingway and Anna Vidiri in their capacities as
employees/agents of APG Security-RI, LLC (collectively,
defendants). The complaint alleged that, in January 2010,
when plaintiff was employed as a security guard by APG
Security-RI, LLC, defendants violated G.L. 1956 §
28-6.5-1 when they required her to submit to a drug test
without the reasonable grounds set forth by the statute and
subsequently terminated her employment based on the result of
that test. The plaintiff sought damages pursuant to both the
EDTS and § 9-1-2.[4] The defendants responded to
plaintiff's complaint with a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure, in which they asserted that the complaint was not
timely filed. A hearing justice of the Superior Court held a
hearing on June 9, 2014, at which defendants argued that the
three-year statute of limitations in § 9-1-14(b) applied
to civil actions arising out of alleged violations of the
EDTS, and
Page 175
plaintiff argued that the ten-year statute of limitations in
§ 9-1-13(a) applied instead. The hearing justice agreed
with defendants and found that the three-year statute of
limitations in § 9-1-14(b) governed plaintiff's
cause of action. The hearing justice also found that the
statute of limitations began to run from the date that the
drug test was administered, and that plaintiff's
complaint had been filed more than three years after the
administration of the drug test. Accordingly, the hearing
justice granted defendants' motion and dismissed
plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff filed a premature
notice of appeal, which we nevertheless deem to be timely.
See Miller v. Saunders, 80 A.3d 44, 47 n.8 (R.I.
2013).[5]
II
Standard
...