Benson v. University of Maine System
857 F. Supp. 2d 171
D. Me.2012Background
- Plaintiffs, former University of Southern Maine employees, claim age discrimination under ADEA and MHRA against University of Maine System.
- The case began with a May 4, 2011 complaint and an August 2011 First Amended Complaint; Plaintiffs sought to amend again.
- Plaintiffs moved to add Richard Pattenaude as Chancellor defendant, asserting Ex Parte Young injunctive relief and federal Rehabilitation Act claim.
- Court allowed amendment to add Chancellor in his official capacity and to include Rehabilitation Act claim; MHRA claim against University dismissed as Eleventh Amendment barred.
- Eleventh Amendment analyzed to permit injunctive relief against state officials but not against state entities; relation back under Rule 15(c) applied to timing of amendment.
- The Second Amended Complaint was filed October 21, 2011, outside the 90-day ADEA window; whether it relates back governs timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendment relates back under Rule 15(c) | Plaintiffs: relate back to original filing; Chancellor named within period; mistake cured | University: amendment futile due to Eleventh Amendment; identity error not allowed | Yes; amendment relates back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C). |
| Eleventh Amendment immunity vs. injunctive relief against state official | ADEA injunctive claim against Chancellor permitted under Ex Parte Young | Eleventh Amendment bars suit against University; only damages bar | ADEA claim allowed against Chancellor for injunctive relief; MHRA against University dismissed. |
| MHRA claim viability against University | MHRA claim should proceed alongside federal claims | Eleventh Amendment bars state-law MHRA claim | Count III MHRA dismissed against University. |
| Rehabilitation Act claim against University (Nisbet) | Disability discrimination claim viable under Rehabilitation Act | Claim inadequately pleaded disability/‘regarded as’ prong | Rehabilitation Act claim survives at this stage; sufficiently pleaded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonard v. Parry, 219 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2000) (Rule 15(c) identity and mistake analysis for relation back)
- Lynch v. Massachusetts State Senate, 495 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Mass. 2007) (timely notice imputable to related defendant; Rule 15(c) relation back)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (2010) (Supreme Court on Rule 15(c)(1)(C) identity and mistakes)
- Rodriguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 659 F.3d 168 (1st Cir. 2011) (analyze mistake and should-have-known concepts under 15(c))
- Young v. Lepone, 305 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (identity of interest and notice concepts for relation back)
- Negron-Almeda v. Santiago, 579 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (Eleventh Amendment exception for prospective injunctive relief against state officials)
- Rosie D. ex rel. Swift v. Swift, 310 F.3d 230 (1st Cir. 2002) (Ex parte Young framework for injunctive relief against state officials)