Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. GGNSC Holdings LLC
2:14-cv-01579
| E.D. Wis. | Jul 24, 2015Background
- EEOC filed an amended complaint alleging ADA discrimination by GGNSC Holdings, LLC and Silver Spring Operating, LLC on behalf of Juanette Barbee.
- EEOC moved for leave to file a second amended complaint to add GGNSC Administrative Services, LLC as a defendant.
- Defendants opposed amendment, arguing futility because Barbee’s charge of discrimination did not name GGNSC Administrative Services.
- Court reviewed Rule 15(a)(2) standards: liberal amendment policy but denial warranted for undue delay, undue prejudice, or futility.
- Court identified two exceptions allowing suit against unnamed parties: the actual-notice and identity-of-interest exceptions, which depend on facts about notice, participation in conciliation, and whether the named party represented the unnamed party’s interests.
- Because the relationship among the GGNSC entities was unclear, the court could not find the amendment futile and granted leave to amend; related motions were resolved as moot or granted accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EEOC may amend to add GGNSC Administrative Services | EEOC seeks to add the entity; amendment appropriate under Rule 15(a)(2) | Futile because Barbee did not name that entity in her charge of discrimination | Grant leave to amend; insufficient facts to deem amendment futile |
| Whether failure to name party in EEOC charge bars suit | EEOC relies on exceptions (actual notice / identity-of-interest) to permit adding unnamed party | Unnamed party cannot be sued when not in the charge | Court cannot decide exceptions now; needs more info on relationships and notice; exceptions may apply |
| Whether amendment would cause undue delay or prejudice | Amendment will not unduly delay or prejudice defendants given remaining case schedule | Opposes amendment on futility grounds (no undue delay/prejudice asserted) | No undue delay or prejudice; schedule still allows amendment; parties may seek extensions if needed |
| Disposition of related motions (strike affirmative defenses; surreply) | Seeks to strike defenses and file surreply | Defendants opposed original motions | Motion to strike defenses denied as moot; motion for leave to file surreply granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Campania Mgmt. Co. v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust, 290 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2002) (Rule 15(a) reflects liberal policy favoring amendments)
- Soltys v. Costello, 520 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2008) (courts may deny amendment for undue delay, prejudice, or futility)
- Sound of Music Co. v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 477 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2007) (amendment is futile if it would not survive summary judgment)
- Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co., 887 F.2d 124 (7th Cir. 1989) (general rule barring suit against party not named in EEOC charge)
- E.E.O.C. v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2014) (discussing actual-notice and identity-of-interest exceptions)
- Alam v. Miller Brewing Co., 709 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2013) (actual-notice exception requires adequate notice and opportunity to participate in conciliation)
- Eggleston v. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local Union No. 130, U.A., 657 F.2d 890 (7th Cir. 1981) (four-prong identity-of-interest test for unnamed-party suits)
- Wilke v. Bob's Route 53 Shell Station, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (discussing exceptions to the naming requirement to avoid harsh results for lay charging parties)