Kort Christoffersen v. Nucor Corporation, doing business as Nucor Steel Utah-Plymouth Division; Don Harris, melter; Matt Buttars, interim melter; Kenny Christoffersen, Dayshift supervisor

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah adopted in full a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation addressing a partial motion to dismiss Kort Christoffersen’s Second Amended Complaint against Nucor Corporation and individual defendants. The court dismissed with prejudice the Rehabilitation Act discrimination claim and the Utah negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim, denied further leave to amend, and allowed Counts 1 through 4 to proceed. The decision was signed on June 5, 2026.

Holdings

1. A Rehabilitation Act claim requires allegations that the defendant itself was the intended recipient of federal financial assistance; alleging only that the defendant participated in programs or activities that received such assistance is insufficient. Because Christoffersen alleged that unidentified programs received the assistance and did not allege that Nucor received it, Count 5 was properly dismissed.
2. A Utah negligent-employment claim requires a plausible allegation that the employer knew or should have known that its employee posed a foreseeable risk of the specific misconduct causing the injury. Alleging that an employee previously engaged in misconduct, without alleging that the employer knew or had reason to know of it, is insufficient.
3. Leave to amend may be denied when a pro se plaintiff has failed to cure pleading deficiencies through amendments previously allowed. Because Christoffersen had already amended twice and repeated the same deficiencies despite prior instruction, further amendment was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the Rehabilitation Act claim with prejudice.
2. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged that Nucor received federal financial assistance, as required for a Rehabilitation Act claim.
3. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged that Nucor had actual or constructive knowledge of the employee misconduct underlying the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim.
4. Whether Plaintiff should receive further leave to amend.

Disposition

other