Gildon v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll.

BRANDY GILDON, Plaintiff, v. IVY TECH COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-1109-JMS-MG

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

April 12, 2022

ORDER

Mario Garcia United States Magistrate Judge

Pending before the Court and ripe for a decision is Plaintiff Brandy Gildon's Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint [Filing No. 31], which Defendant Ivy Tech Community College ("Ivy Tech") opposes, [Filing No. 32]. In sum, Plaintiff, by way of amendment, seeks to swap her disability discrimination claims for Title VII race discrimination claims.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against her employer, Ivy Tech, on April 30, 2021, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Plaintiff alleges that Ivy Tech employees harassed her because she was undergoing treatment for cancer and because she had a heart attack. [Filing No. 1 at 2-4.] She also alleges that after she complained about the harassment, Ivy Tech retaliated against her and denied her opportunities. [Filing No. 1 at 3-4.]

Ivy Tech filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint on September 17, 2021. [Filing No. 14.] The Court issued a Case Management Plan Order (the "CMP Order") on October 5, 2021. [Filing No. 18.] The CMP Order provided a deadline of January 3, 2022 for the parties to amend pleadings. [Filing No. 18 at 3.]

On November 17, 2021, notwithstanding that Ivy Tech had already answered the original Complaint, Ivy Tech filed a Motion to Dismiss, [Filing No. 19], under Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6) on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.^[1] Specifically, Ivy Tech's Motion to Dismiss argues that because the Supreme Court has previously determined that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to ADA claims (absent express waiver by a State), it is immune from Plaintiff's ADA claims. [See generally Filing No. 20.]

Rather than filing a brief in response to Ivy Tech's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend on January 26, 2022. [Filing No. 31.] Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint, [Filing No 31-1], does not reassert ADA claims and instead asserts claims of racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends that the harassing and retaliatory actions previously identified in the original Complaint are also attributable to her race. The Proposed Amended Complaint also includes new factual allegations about events that occurred after the filing of the original Complaint, including that in May 2021, Plaintiff learned that she would remain on a performance-improvement plan (the "PIP") and that in August 2021, her workload was increased without additional pay. [Filing No. 31-1.]

To advance her Title VII claim, Plaintiff signed an EEOC charge on January 24, 2022 describing the alleged discrimination, which the EEOC received on January 25, 2022. [Filing No. 32-1.] The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on January 26, 2022, dismissing Plaintiffs charge and stating that she had 90 days to initiate a lawsuit. [Filing No. 31-2.] Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend the same date that she received the EEOC's right-to-sue letter. [Filing No. 31.]

II. Discussion

Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend is very short. [Filing No. 31.] Plaintiff says the new race-based claims involve the "same parties" and a "similar transactions/occurrence." [Filing No. 31 at 1.] She additionally asserts that some of the complained-of conduct in the Proposed Amended Complaint occurred after the filing of the original Complaint, and that she has filed an EEOC Charge based on these more recent allegations. [Filing No. 31 at 1.] She says that permitting the amendment will "preserve the Court's resources," by seeking relief in this existing lawsuit "in lieu of filing a new Complaint." [Filing No. 31 at 1.]

Ivy Tech opposes Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend. Ivy Tech argues that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement in Fed.R.Civ.P. 16, which required Plaintiff to establish "good cause" to set aside the CMP Order's January 3, 2022 deadline for amendments. [Filing No. 32 at 4-7.] Ivy Tech further asserts that the new Title VII and § 1983 race-based claims are "not remotely related to the alleged claim of disability discrimination contained in Plaintiff's Original Complaint." [Filing No. 32 at 3-4.] Ivy Tech also argues that it is prejudiced by Plaintiff's delay in seeking amendment. Ivy Tech's opposition brief focuses intently on the timing of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave, noting that it was filed the day Plaintiff's response to Ivy Tech's Motion to Dismiss was due. [See Filing No. 32 at 9.] It also points out that the EEOC received Plaintiffs Charge on January 25, 2022, i.e., one day prior to the response deadline for the Motion to Dismiss. Finally, Ivy Tech says that Plaintiff's proposed amendments are futile because, with respect to the Title VII claim, the EEOC's right-to-sue letter is dated January 26, 2022-a mere day after the EEOC received Plaintiff's Charge-and the letter incorrectly states that "more than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge." [Filing No. 32 at 10-11.] In light of this, Ivy Tech says, Plaintiff has not administratively exhausted her claim. As for the § 1983 claim, Ivy Tech argues that it is not a "person" that can be sued, and furthermore, it is immune from § 1983 claims. [Filing No. 32 at 13-15.]

In reply, Plaintiff withdraws her § 1983 claim. [Filing No. 33 at 3 n.2 ("Plaintiff is willing to withdraw her Section 1983 claims.").] As for amending to add the Title VII claims, she says that she has good cause for seeking amendment after the January 3, 2022 CMP Order deadline because, as set forth in a prior motion for extension of time to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff's counsel had a heavy workload and then contracted and was hospitalized with COVID-19 in December 2021 and into January 2022. She explains that when she filed the new EEOC Charge on January 25, 2022, counsel requested "that the EEOC issue a Notice of Right to Sue immediately because a federal complaint between the two parties, dealing with similar issues was pending." [Filing No. 33 at 2.] Plaintiff further explains that the "EEOC issued the Notice of Right to Sue after proof that federal lawsuit had been filed between the parties" was submitted. [Filing No. 33 at 2.]

A. Joinder of Claims

As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses the question implicitly raised by Ivy Tech as to whether a plaintiff can swap one legal theory for another after a complaint is filed. [See Filing No. 32 at 9 (arguing that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend "alleg[es] entirely new and separate claims; claims which do not arise from the same facts and circumstances alleged in the Original Complaint").] Generally, a plaintiff may raise in a single lawsuit all claims the plaintiff has against a defendant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a) (permitting a party to "join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party"); see also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that under Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a) "multiple claims against a single party are fine"). Against this underlying principle that a plaintiff can file a single lawsuit with as many claims (related or unrelated) as the plaintiff possesses against a defendant, Ivy Tech cites no case law for the proposition that a plaintiff's subsequently added claim against a defendant must relate to prior claims against that defendant. Furthermore, even if such rule did exist, the allegations in the Proposed Amended Complaint center on the similar issues raised in Plaintiff's original Complaint, namely, her alleged treatment and performance at work and the alleged reasons for denying Plaintiff certain work opportunities.

Finding no basis in law or fact to deny Plaintiff the opportunity to amend solely because she seeks to assert a new claim that differs from her original claim, the Court turns to the traditional standards governing amending pleadings.

B. Rule 16 Good Cause Standard

When a party seeks leave to amend after the deadline for amendments to the pleadings has expired, the party must show "good cause." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4) ("A schedule may be modified only for good cause."); see also Arrigo v. Link, 836 F.3d 787, 797 (7th Cir. 2016) ("To amend a pleading after the expiration of the trial court's scheduling order deadline to amend pleadings, the moving party must show 'good cause.'") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Courts may "apply the heightened good-cause standard of Rule 16(b)(4) before considering whether the requirements of Rule 15(a)(2) [are] satisfied." Bell v. Taylor, 827 F.3d 699, 706 (7th Cir. 2016) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Because the deadline for the parties to amend their pleadings was January 3, 2022, [Filing No. 18 at 3], Plaintiff must show "good cause" for seeking leave to amend on January 26, 2022-i.e., 23 days after the deadline. "Rule 16's 'good cause' standard focuses primarily on the moving party's diligence in seeking leave to amend or supplement its complaint." R3 Composites Corp. v. G&S Sales Corp., 2021 WL 613836, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 17, 2021).

The good cause offered by Plaintiff for the 23-day delay (found in her reply brief) is that Plaintiff's counsel was suffering from COVID-19 symptoms and complications during December 2021 and January 2022, including a hospitalization.^[2] [Filing No. 33 at 1.] She also notes that she needed to exhaust her claim with the EEOC first before filing her Title VII claim. [Filing No 33 at 2.] Ivy Tech correctly notes that Plaintiff failed to provide this explanation in her Motion for Leave to Amend. [Filing No. 32 at 5.] Whi...