EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. J AND R BAKER FARMS LLC et al

Filing 94

ORDER finding as moot 83 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 85 Amended Motion to Amend/Correct. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 3/8/2016. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
and
DEREK DAVIS, et al.,

Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-136 (HL)

Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
J & R BAKER FARMS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Corrected Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint. (Doc. 85).1 Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion seeks to add ten
additional Plaintiff-Intervenors, including Cedric Butts, Erica Daniels, Gerwarney
Flemming, Tony Harrison, Sharon Lyles, Emma Jean Powell, Robert Ridely, Eric
Sims, Kareem Washington, and Anthony Wingfield. Defendants object only to the
inclusion of proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors Tony Harrison, Sharon Lyles, and

1

Plaintiff-Intervenors timely filed their original Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint (Doc. 83) on January 31, 2016. Realizing that there were several
errors in the first motion, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed their amended motion on
February 8, 2016, to include an additional Plaintiff-Intervenor, to revise some
factual assertions, and to correct some typographical errors. Plaintiff-Intervenors’
original motion (Doc. 83) is, accordingly, moot.

Anthony Wingfield, who purportedly worked for Defendants during the Fall 2013
season.2 Defendants also object to the amendment to the extent it contains new
factual allegations of discriminatory drug testing. Finding no evidence of undue
delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, the Court exercises the discretion granted by
the liberal standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and grants PlaintiffIntervenors’ motion to amend.
Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with the
opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
However, leave to amend shall be freely given “when justice so requires.” Id.
“[U]nless a substantial reason exists to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the
District Court is not broad enough to permit denial.” Shipner v. Eastern Air Lines,
Inc., 868 F.2d 401, 407 (11th Cir. 1989). Certain factors justify the denial of a
motion to amend, including undue prejudice to the opposing party, undue delay,
bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, or futility
of the amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Laurie v. Ala. Ct.
of Crim. App., 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001).

2

Plaintiff-Intervenors identified Quintin Daniels in their Complaint in Intervention
as an individual employed by Defendants during the Fall 2012 Season. (Doc. 39,
¶ 15). Plaintiff-Intervenors’ proposed amended complaint also alleges that
Quintin Daniels was subjected to disparate treatment during the Fall 2013
Season. (Doc. 85-1, ¶ 18). Defendants object to the addition of Quintin Daniels’
claims arising from the latter season.
2

Defendants object to Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion to amend their Complaint
in Intervention to include additional Plaintiff-Intervenors who allegedly worked for
Defendants during the Fall 2013 season. (See Doc. 85-1, ¶¶ 18, 135-51).
Defendants accuse Plaintiff-Intervenors of attempting to “artfully avoid a Title VII
claim as to the Fall 2013 season, knowing that it is flawed because there were no
underlying EEOC charges.” (Doc. 88, pp. 3-4). Defendants’ argument is
unavailing, namely because the Court has already addressed this very issue in
relation to the proposed intervention of those Plaintiff-Intervenors who were
employed by Defendants during the Spring 2013 season. In its Order granting
the Motion to Intervene (Doc. 38), the Court ruled that, even though the workers
whose claims arose during the Spring 2013 Season could not intervene as a
matter of right under the single-filing rule because their claims arose after the
date any representative plaintiff filed a representative charge with the EEOC,
those workers could permissively intervene under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24(b)(1)(B) because their claims shared common questions of law
and fact. (Id. at pp. 7-11). That same logic applies here in relation to those
proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors who worked for Defendants during the Fall 2013
season. With the exception of the drug testing allegations, these additional
intervenors raise claims mirroring those included in the original Complaint in
Intervention. The Fall 2013 Plaintiff-Intervenors accordingly fall within the scope
of the lawsuit, which purports to include those workers employed by Defendants
3

from 2010 through the present (Doc. 38, p. 9), and there is no basis for
Defendant’s contention that inclusion of these individuals would somehow cause
Defendants surprise or unfairness.
Defendants next argue that the Court should not permit the proposed
Plaintiff-Intervenors to assert that they were subject to disparate drug testing.
According to Defendants, this new claim is untimely, dilatory, and generally bears
no relationship to Plaintiff-Intervenors’ previously-asserted disparate treatment
claims pertaining to job assignments, transportation, and termination. The Court
disagrees. The allegation that American born workers were subject to drug
testing while non-American born workers were not directly correlates with
Plaintiff-Intervenors’ disparate treatment in termination claim. Further, it is clear
to the Court that the drug testing issue is one that has developed both through
written discovery and depositions. While the Court will not provide PlaintiffIntervenors any additional time in which to develop the drug testing allegations
further, the subject matter itself certainly falls within the scope of the case, and
Plaintiff-Intervenors will be permitted to explore their contention within the time
remaining for discovery.
Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Motion to Amend Complaint in Intervention (Doc. 85)
is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Amended Complaint attached
as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion.

4

SO ORDERED this 8th day of March, 2016.

s/ Hugh Lawson________________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
aks

5