Menk v. The Mitre Corporation, 1:23-cv-00053

Plaintiffs, former employees of The MITRE Corporation, alleged violations of Title VII, the ADA, various constitutional amendments, and state common law stemming from the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine policies.
The district court previously dismissed all claims on multiple grounds, including failure to state claims and because MITRE is not a state actor.
Plaintiffs sought to reopen the case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 59, and requested leave to amend their complaint, attaching extensive affidavits and references to an external EEOC brief.
The plaintiffs conceded that Counts II through XIV should be dismissed but sought to preserve them for appeal while seeking to amend Count I related to religious discrimination under Title VII.
The proposed amended complaint included voluminous exhibits but did not clearly and concisely address the factual deficiencies identified in the original complaint, and the court found it confusing and insufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Leave to Amend Complaint	Amendment warranted under liberal Rule 15 standard; new affidavits and references cure deficiencies.	Amendment futile; claims remain insufficient and would prejudice defendant by requiring duplicative litigation.	Denied: Proposed amendment futile and confused; not compliant with Rule 8 or Rule 15.
State Actor Requirement	Sought discovery to establish MITRE as a state actor for constitutional and RFRA claims.	MITRE is not a state actor; issue can be decided on pleadings.	Denied: No discovery; claims fail regardless on multiple bases.
Sufficiency of Religious Discrimination Claim (Count I)	Attached affidavits and referenced EEOC brief to correct lack of individualized factual allegations.	Proposed amendments are voluminous but do not remedy essential pleading defects or specify allegations by plaintiff.	Denied: Allegations still lack specificity and substance per Rule 8.
Preservation of Dismissed Counts for Appeal	Amending complaint necessary to preserve Counts II-XIV for appellate review.	Re-filing dismissed counts is unnecessary and burdensome.	Denied: Court's rulings preserve right to appeal; duplicative counts are not required.

Katyle v. Penn Nat’l. Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2011) (standard for postjudgment motions to amend under Rule 15)
Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503 (4th Cir. 1986) (leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be prejudicial or futile)
Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) (liberal amendment standard under Rule 15)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given except for undue delay, bad faith, or futility)
Chalmers v. Tulon Co. of Richmond, 101 F.3d 1012 (4th Cir. 1996) (elements of a prima facie case for religious accommodation under Title VII)