295 F.R.D. 104
D. Maryland2013Background
- Plaintiff Sylvia Wonasue, former executive manager of UMAA, alleges pregnancy-related discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge under ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and FMLA after requested accommodations were denied.
- Plaintiff previously had other claims dismissed by the Court on June 1, 2012 (e.g., due process and wrongful discharge).
- Plaintiff seeks to amend to add UMCP and Janice McMillan as defendants, alleging UMAA and UMCP as integrated entities and to expand claims (including Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Title VII, and FMLA).
- Plaintiff also proposes a new Rule 23(b)(2) class action for about 25 UMAA employees with identical alleged policies.
- Scheduling order originally set July 16, 2012 for amendments; extended to Aug. 16, 2012 and discovery to Feb. 15, 2013; Plaintiff moved March and April 2013 to amend.
- Court denies first amended motion for leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff showed good cause under Rule 16(b) to amend after the deadline | Plaintiff obtained new information late in discovery, just before deadlines. | Delays were substantial and reflect lack of diligence and good faith. | No good cause; amendment denied. |
| Whether adding UMCP and McMillan relates back or is futile | UMCP and McMillan are proper defendants based on integrated-employer theory. | Not named in EEOC charge; no notice or relation back; will be futile. | Relate back not satisfied; amendment futile. |
| Whether the proposed class action claim is viable under Rule 23 | There is a 25-member class with common questions of policy and remedies. | Numerosity and typicality/adequacy not satisfied; class certification unlikely. | Class claim futile; not maintainable. |
| Whether the amended claims are time-barred and subject to limitations on new defendants | New claims/defendants should be considered despite limitations. | FMLA and state-law claims time-barred; new defendants not named in EEOC charge; no relation back. | Amendment futile due to limitations and lack of notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458 (4th Cir.2007) (proposed new defendant must have notice within limitations period to relate back)
- Katyle v. Penn Nat. Gaming Inc., 637 F.3d 462 (4th Cir.2011) (rules for futility and relation back for amended complaints)
- Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hosp. Ass’n, 375 F.2d 648 (4th Cir.1967) (numerosity and class effectiveness considerations)
- Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, 726 F.2d 136 (4th Cir.1984) (considerations for class certification and amendment)