Pearson v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools

Filing 24

ORDER that Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the entry of this Order to file a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, accompanied by a proposed Amended Complaint naming the proper party as a defendant.. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 2/4/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(blf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:12-cv-334-RJC
SHARON PEARSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS, )
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools’
Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 12), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 20), recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s
Motion.
Pro se Plaintiff Sharon Pearson (“Plaintiff”) alleges in her Complaint, (Doc. No. 1), that
she was discriminated against when Defendant Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools (“Defendant”)
failed to hire her based on the fact that she suffers from sickle cell disease and based on her
gender. Plaintiff’s allegations, therefore, appear to be in the nature of an employment
discrimination action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; the
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff-1(a) et seq.; and/or N.C.
GEN. STAT. § 95-28.1 (prohibiting discrimination against any person possessing the Sickle Cell
or Hemoglobin C trait).

On November 28, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.
(Doc. No. 12). Plaintiff responded, (Doc. No. 15), and Defendant replied, (Doc. No. 16). In its
Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argues that because Plaintiff named Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools as Defendant, which is not a legal entity that can be sued, and not CharlotteMecklenburg Board of Education, Plaintiff has not asserted jurisdiction over the appropriate
defendant and has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 12 at 1-2);
see FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
On January 7 and January 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed two documents entitled “addendum,”
and a second Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. See (Doc. Nos. 17; 18;
19). In these filings, Plaintiff attempts to explain why she named Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools and not Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. See (id.). The Magistrate Judge
filed an M&R on January 8, 2013, recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss because Plaintiff failed to name the proper party. (Doc. No. 12). Plaintiff filed a third
Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on January 18, 2013, (Doc. No. 23), and an
Objection to the M&R on January 22, 2013, (Doc. No. 22). In her Objection to the M&R, (Doc.
No. 22), Plaintiff “asks the courts to allow me to insert, and or amend the name to show
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff also reiterates Defendant’s
statement from its Motion to Dismiss that Plaintiff should be required to file a new or amended
complaint. (Id.).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely
given when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). The Supreme Court has declared that
“this mandate is to be heeded.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The law is well
settled “that leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be
2

prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the
amendment would be futile.” Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986).
Delay alone is an insufficient reason to deny leave to amend. See id. Rather, the delay must be
accompanied by prejudice, bad faith, or futility. See id. There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s
request to amend was made in bad faith, or that allowing amendment will prejudice Defendant.
Further, it is not readily apparent that amendment would be futile.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the
entry of this Order to file a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, accompanied by a proposed
Amended Complaint naming the proper party as a defendant.

Signed: February 4, 2013

3