Cummings-Fowler v. Suffolk County Community College
282 F.R.D. 292
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Plaintiff Michele/Cummings-Fowler sues SCCC and her former supervisors Canniff and Britton under Title VII and NYHRL, plus Section 1983 theories.
- Original NYHRL claims were dismissed as time-barred (Mar. 2, 2010), with leave to amend hostil e environment claims.
- Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Mar. 22, 2010); later orders addressed dismissal of hostile environment claims (Nov. 2, 2010).
- Plaintiff seeks to add Title VII retaliation claims against SCCC based on post-filing conduct (Oct.–Nov. 2009).
- Proposed retaliation conduct includes hiring Plaintiff’s estranged husband despite protection orders, creating an unsafe environment, and his subsequent termination following Plaintiff’s complaints; Plaintiff alleges November 20, 2009, attempted murder occurred.
- Court will treat motion as Rule 15(d) supplementation/Rule 15(a) amendment and grant leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend to add retaliation claims should be granted | Delay excused by post-complaint events and ongoing discovery. | Undue delay and prejudice; untimely for a post-complaint claim. | Granted; liberal Rule 15(d)/Rule 15(a) standard supports amendment. |
| Whether delay/prejudice/futility bar the amendment | Delay minimal given post-complaint events; no substantial prejudice. | Delay prejudicial; amendment would require discovery. | Delay not fatal; prejudice and futility not shown; not futile to amend. |
| Whether the proposed Second Amended Complaint plausibly states retaliation under Title VII | Causal link between protected activity and adverse actions plausible. | Causation connection not clearly established. | Plaintiff plausibly states a retaliation claim; amendment allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly, Bell Atl. Corp. v., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Iqbal, Ashcroft v., 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state plausible claims; accept facts as true)
- Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 71 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1995) (standard for supplementing pleadings under Rule 15(d))
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (factors for granting leave to amend; prejudice, bad faith, futility)
- Monahan v. New York City Dep’t of Corr., 214 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2000) (prejudice analysis for amendments; discovery burdens)
- Sista v. CDC Ixis North America, Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2006) (causal connection standard for retaliation claims)
- Kessler v. Westchester County Dept. of Social Servs., 461 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2006) (reasonable employee standard for material adversity in retaliation)