Rodriguez v. Zale Delaware, Inc.
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 10/30/2017, re Plaintiff's 13 MOTION to File a First Amended Complaint. cc: Counsel (RLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
SAMMIE RODRIGUEZ
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-00199-CRS
v.
ZALE DELAWARE, INC. D/B/A
ZALES JEWELERS
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on motion of Plaintiff Sammie Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) to
file a First Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). (DN 13.) The court will
GRANT the motion as unopposed.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Rodriguez filed a complaint in March of 2017 in Hardin Circuit Court,
Kentucky, alleging that Defendant Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Zales Jewelers (“Zales”) violated
KRS § 344.040. (DN 1). The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff worked as a sales associate at
Zales between 2011 and 2016. (Id., ¶ 3.)
Rodriguez claims that she was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of
Kentucky law. (Id., ¶ 11.) She states that she is in a protected class by virtue of her age. (Id., ¶
8.)
Rodriguez further alleges that a “much younger” employee created a hostile work
environment by pushing the plaintiff around, cursing her, and referring to her as an “old
woman.” (Id., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff asserts that she reported this conduct to store management, but that
Defendant took no action to stop the hostile conduct. (Id., ¶ 6.) Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges that
-1-
her resignation from Zales on July 9, 2016 amounted to constructive discharge and was an
adverse employment action. (Id., ¶ 9.)
Defendant Zales removed this action to this court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
(DN 1.) Plaintiff now moves the court for leave to file the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
(DN 13). Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to specify humiliation, embarrassment, and
emotional distress, as well as damages for the same, and a demand for back pay and front pay.
(Id.)
II.
DISCUSSION
A court should freely grant leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). A district court may deny a motion to amend where there is “undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
(1962). There is no evidence of any such reason to deny the present motion. Therefore, the
motion will be granted.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to file a First
Amended Complaint.
An order will be entered in accordance with this opinion.
October 30, 2017
C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?