Dickerson v. KeyPoint Government Solutions Inc., 1:16-cv-00657

Yolonda Dickerson worked for KeyPoint Government Solutions from 2008 to 2014 and alleges disability and race-based discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and Title VII after workplace injuries (carpal tunnel) and subsequent events.
She filed an EEOC Charge in 2012 and a second Charge in July 2014 after termination; the 2014 Charge complained of adverse client/region assignments that reduced productivity.
During 2012–2014 she alleges reduced assignments, reassignment to areas outside her territory, receiving coworkers’ work (resulting in overwork), unequal treatment in documentation requests, a pay decrease, and termination shortly after protesting reassignment/pay cut.
Defendant sought leave to amend its Answer after plaintiff’s depositions to add an affirmative defense that Dickerson failed to exhaust administrative remedies because certain deposition statements (e.g., “assigning me work and receiving other’s work”) did not appear in her EEOC filings.
The court considered both Rule 15(a) (leave to amend; futility) and Rule 16(b) (scheduling order; good cause) standards and recommended denial of defendant’s motion primarily because the proposed amendment would be futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amendment to add failure-to-exhaust defense is futile under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)	Dickerson: the overwork and receiving coworkers’ assignments were fairly within the scope of her 2014 EEOC Charge and rebuttal letter, so exhaustion was satisfied	KeyPoint: deposition statements describing receiving coworkers’ work were not included in EEOC filings, so plaintiff failed to exhaust those claims	Court: Held amendment would be futile — the overwork/assignment claims reasonably grew from the 2014 Charge, so exhaustion defense is legally insufficient
Whether defendant showed good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) to amend after the scheduling deadline	Dickerson: (implicit) defendant had sufficient time earlier and should have raised exhaustion sooner	KeyPoint: moved promptly after depositions and thus was diligent	Court: Good cause existed (defendant was diligent), but because Rule 15(a) futility blocks relief, the motion to amend was denied

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors for granting leave to amend pleadings)
Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484 (3d Cir. 1990) (Third Circuit favors liberal amendment policy)
Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (procedural law governing Rule 15 motions follows regional circuit law)
Daoud v. City of Wilmington, 894 F. Supp. 2d 544 (D. Del. 2012) (scope of EEOC charge for exhaustion purposes)
Ostapowicz v. Johnson Bronze Co., 541 F.2d 394 (3d Cir. 1976) (claims may be considered to have "grown out of" EEOC allegations)
Pierson v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 821 F. Supp. 2d 360 (D.D.C. 2011) (analysis of claims growing out of EEOC charges)