Davis v. Wayne State University

Filing 11

OPINION AND ORDER granting 9 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRENDA JOYCE DAVIS,
Case No. 11-10324
Plaintiff,
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
v.
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.
District Courthouse, Eastern District
of Michigan, on May 5, 2011.
PRESENT:

THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On January 26, 2011, Brenda Davis (“Plaintiff”) filed this pro se action, alleging
discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
(“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.1 Before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by
Wayne State University (“Defendant”) on March 7, 2011 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Proceed and Request
for Modification of Claims,” filed on April 12, 2011. On May 4, 2011, the Court notified
1

While Plaintiff only checked the “race” and “ADA-defined disability” boxes on page
two of her Complaint, the Court notes that her “Civil Cover Sheet” lists the applicable
causes of action as Title VII, ADA, and FMLA.

the parties that it was dispensing with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of
Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s
motion and defers consideration of Defendant’s motion.
I. Background
Plaintiff was at one time employed by Defendant as a case manager and research
assistant for the Karmanos Cancer Institute’s Breast and Cervical Cancer Control Program.
Her job duties included data collection and entry, as well as making reminder phone calls
to patients. Plaintiff apparently suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis. She
underwent treatment and physical therapy for these conditions, and subsequently returned
to work. Plaintiff was apparently dismissed from her employment sometime later. She
filed complaints with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. After both agencies dismissed her complaints, Plaintiff filed
this action in the Eastern District of Michigan.
On March 7, 2011, Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff’s allegations are mere conclusions
that are insufficient to state a valid claim for relief. Defendant contends that Plaintiff has
failed to set forth the elements of a prima facie case of race or disability discrimination
under federal law.
Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant’s motion, but on April 12, 2011, filed a
“Motion to Proceed and Request for Modification of Claims.” In her motion, Plaintiff
states that three attorneys have been unwilling to represent her because they concluded
that she could not prove discrimination based on race. She claims that at least one of these
2

attorneys stated that she might have a valid FMLA claim. Plaintiff seeks to amend her
charge to include the FMLA violation, as well as “to let stand my charge of discrimination
based on disability.” Pl.’s Mot. 4.
II. Discussion
The Court first considers Plaintiff’s motion, which it construes as a motion to amend
the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) provides that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of
course within twenty-one days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f).
Otherwise, a party may amend only with the opposing party’s written consent or the
court’s leave, but “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts have discretion in granting leave to amend. Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230 (1962). “If the underlying facts or circumstances relied
upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject for relief, he ought to be afforded an
opportunity to test his claim on the merits.” Id. In the absence of any apparent or declared
reason, such as undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue
prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment, leave to amend should be
freely given. Id.
Plaintiff did not file her motion to amend within twenty-one days after Defendant’s
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The
Court concludes, however, that leave to amend is appropriately granted in this case.
Plaintiff states that she did not respond quickly to Defendant’s motion because she has
been attempting to obtain legal representation. Leave to amend does not appear futile, as
3

the Court has no reason to conclude that Plaintiff’s FMLA claim is plainly meritless.
There is no indication that Plaintiff has acted in bad faith or to cause unnecessary delay,
and Defendant will not be unduly prejudiced by granting leave to amend. The Court
therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion. The Court reminds Plaintiff that the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure require parties to state their allegations and claims in numbered
paragraphs so that their adversaries may respond to each. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10.
Because the Court has granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend, Defendant’s motion to
dismiss is appropriately deferred pending the filing of an amended Complaint. Of course,
if Defendant wishes, it may file an updated motion to dismiss in response to any amended
Complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Complaint is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the
date of this order;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DEFERRED
pending the filing of an amended Complaint or expiration of the twenty-one day period set
forth above.
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Brenda Joyce Davis
20521 Archdale
Detroit, MI 48235
Amy Stirling Lammers, Esq.
4