Casey v. Orbital ATK, Inc. et al
Filing
29
ORDER denying 3 motion to dismiss case; granting 12 motion to amend/correct. Signed on July 27, 2018 by Chief District Judge Greg Kays. (Law clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
KRISTEN CASEY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ORBITAL ATK, INC., and
)
BUSINESS PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., )
)
Defendants.
)
Civil No. 4:18-cv-044-DGK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND, DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
This lawsuit stems from Plaintiff Kristen Casey’s allegations that she was subjected to sexual
harassment, gender discrimination, and race discrimination while working at Defendant Orbital
ATK, Inc.’s (“Orbital”) Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. Plaintiff was placed at the plant by a
temporary employment agency, Defendant Business Personnel Services, Inc. (“BPS”).
Now before the Court is Orbital’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) and Casey’s Motion to Amend
Complaint (Doc. 12). Holding that Plaintiff’s Title VII claims in the amended complaint relate back
to her original complaint, the motion to amend is GRANTED and the motion to dismiss is DENIED
AS MOOT.
Procedural Background
The relevant procedural history is as follows. On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed charges of
employment discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (“MCHR”) and the
federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) asserting identical claims of
discrimination and retaliation against Orbital and BPS. At Plaintiff’s request, the MCHR terminated
its proceedings with respect to BPS on August 17, 2017, and issued a notice of right to sue with
regard to BPS that same day. Shortly thereafter, on August 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed suit in Jackson
County Circuit Court—four days before significant revisions to the Missouri Human Rights Act
became effective. Plaintiff did not include in her petition any Title VII claims.
On September 21, 2017, the EEOC issued a dismissal and notice of rights letter to Plaintiff,
advising her that she had 90 days to file suit under Title VII.
On November 7, 2017, the MCHR issued a right to sue letter with regard to Orbital. Plaintiff
subsequently served Orbital with the lawsuit on December 19, 2017.
Orbital removed the lawsuit to federal court on January 17, 2018, by invoking the Court’s
“federal enclave” jurisdiction. On January 18, 2018, Orbital filed the pending motion to dismiss,
noting the ammunition plant was a federal enclave and the MHRA does not apply to federal
enclaves.1
April 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed her response opposing the motion to dismiss (Doc. 11). She did
not address Orbital’s argument that the MHRA does not apply to federal enclaves. Instead, she
argued the motion should be denied because she was a victim of discrimination, harassment, and
retaliation, that she should be allowed to amend her complaint to bring her Title VII claims, and that
these claims relate back to her original complaint because they stem from the same common core of
operative facts alleged in the original complaint. At the same time, Plaintiff filed the pending motion
to amend the complaint to include her Title VII claims.
On April 30, 2018, Orbital filed its brief opposing the motion to amend, arguing Plaintiff
made a strategic decision to abandon her Title VII claims when she filed suit, and that she should not
1
In 1947, the State of Missouri consented to federal acquisition of the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, granting the
federal government exclusive jurisdiction over it. See Miller v. Wackenhut Serv. Inc., 808 F. Supp. 697, 699 (W.D. Mo.
1992) (holding the plant is United States government property and a federal enclave); Bell v. Alliant Lake City Small
Caliber Ammunition Co., LLC, No. 05-1106-CV-ODS, 2006 WL 742272, at *1 (confirming the ammunition plant is a
2
be permitted to assert these claims now since they are time-barred and do not relate back to her
original complaint.
Standard of Review
A complaint may also be dismissed if it fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To avoid dismissal, a complaint must include “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Plaintiff need not demonstrate the claim is
probable, only that it is more than just possible. Id. In reviewing the complaint, the court construes
it liberally and draws all reasonable inferences from the facts in the Plaintiff’s favor. Monson v.
Drug Enforcement Admin., 589 F.3d 952, 961 (8th Cir. 2009).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also provide that twenty-one days after a 12(b)(6)
motion has been filed, “a party may amend its pleadings only with the opposing party’s written
consent or the court’s leave. The Court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a). While “leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires, plaintiffs do not
have an absolute or automatic right to amend.” United States v. Fairview Health Sys., 413 F.3d 748,
749 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). “Leave is properly denied when there has been undue delay,
bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, if the amendment would cause undue
prejudice to the non-movant, or if the amendments would be futile.” Harris v. SWAN, Inc., 459 F.
Supp. 2d 857, 865 (E.D. Mo. 2005).
federal enclave and dismissing the plaintiff’s MHRA claims since “Federal law is the only law governing [the
ammunition plant], except to the extent Congress specifically authorizes state regulation.”).
3
Discussion
If Plaintiff had moved to amend within twenty-one days of being served with Orbital’s
motion to dismiss, she could have amended her complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a).
She did not, so she must move to amend under Rule 15(a)(2).
Applying Rule 15 and the applicable caselaw, the Court finds leave to amend should be
given. While Plaintiff made an initial strategic decision to pursue only her MHRA claims in order to
litigate this case in state court, she was free to do so because as a plaintiff she is master of her
complaint. Her decision to assert her Title VII claims after removal does not constitute undue delay,
bad faith, or a dilatory motive, nor would it cause undue prejudice to Orbital. Further, the proposed
amendments are not futile since they relate back to the original complaint: they arise out of the same
conduct set out in the original complaint because they have their factual basis in the original
complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)(1)(B); Maegdlin v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers, Dist. 949, 309 F.3d 1051, 1053 (8th Cir. 2002) (observing it is the well pleaded facts, not
the theory of recovery or legal conclusions, that state a cause of action and put the defendant on
notice); see also Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 659 (2005) (observing “relation back depends on the
existence of a common core of operative facts uniting the original and newly asserted claims”).
Accordingly, the motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 12) is GRANTED, and Orbital’s motion to
dismiss the complaint (Doc. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff shall file the proposed amended complaint within three business days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27, 2018
/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
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?