NEWMAN v. AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION, 2:24-cv-00887

Wayne Newman sued his former employer Ambry Genetics Corp., two individuals (Bedell and Shandley), and originally Ambry's parent, for retaliation under Title VII and several state tort claims.
Plaintiff alleged retaliation for his involvement as a witness in a sexual harassment investigation at Ambry Genetics; he did not initially claim to have experienced or reported sexual harassment personally.
The defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement; the court granted this motion and stayed the case.
Newman moved for reconsideration, arguing a recent Second Circuit case (Olivieri) changed the law on what disputes are excused from forced arbitration under the EFAA.
Newman also sought leave to amend his complaint to allege, for the first time, that he personally reported sexual harassment, arguing this would bring his case within the EFAA's protection.
The court denied both reconsideration and leave to amend, finding undue delay and bad faith in the timing and substance of the amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to reconsider compelling arbitration in light of Olivieri	Olivieri broadens EFAA protection to retaliation claims like Newman’s	Olivieri does not apply; Newman never pled facts placing claim under EFAA	Motion for reconsideration denied; Olivieri not controlling and is distinguishable
Whether leave to amend should be granted after new factual allegations	Amendment needed to address court’s concerns; no unfair prejudice	Delay is undue and in bad faith; facts were always known and amendment is strategic	Leave to amend denied for undue, unexcused delay and bad faith
Whether the EFAA covers witness-only retaliation claims	EFAA should protect those retaliated against for corroborating harassment claims	EFAA only applies to claimants who experience or report harassment, not mere witnesses	EFAA does not apply in this context; witness-only retaliation not protected
Whether post-decision amendments are allowed	Rule 15(a) favors amendments when justice requires	Delay and legal maneuvering here are prejudicial and inefficient	Requests to amend can be denied for delay/bad faith, even pre-judgment

American Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2003) (district courts can reconsider interlocutory orders before final judgment)
Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) (amendment rules and post-judgment amendments)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (standards for granting or denying leave to amend pleadings)