Little v. Nationwide Children's Hospital

Filing 37

Opinion and Order : GRANTEDin part and DENIED in part # 29 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by Keith Little and DENYING 31 MOTION to File a Complaint Against Nationwide Children's Hospital filed by Keith Little. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file his amended complaint, consistent with this Opinion and Order, within ten (10) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 5/11/10. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION KEITH LITTLE, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action 2:09-CV-190 Judge Frost Magistrate Judge King

NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This is an employment action in which plaintiff alleges that defendant permitted its employees to threaten and harass plaintiff, that defendant made no effort to accommodate plaintiff's disability, that

defendant divulged plaintiff's personal information to his co-workers and that defendant manipulated plaintiff's work schedule to cause further emotional and physical duress. This matter is now before the Court on

plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint, Doc. No. 29 [hereinafter "Motion to Amend"], and on plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Complaint against Nationwide Children's Hospital, Doc. No. 31, in which plaintiff appears to complain about defendant's response to plaintiff's request for production of documents [hereinafter "Motion to Compel"].

Motion to Amend Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." F.R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). "[T]he thrust of Rule 15 is to reinforce the

principle that cases `should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings.'" Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559

(6th Cir. 1986) quoting Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1982). However, leave to amend is properly denied where the claim sought to be asserted by the amendment would not survive a motion to dismiss. Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684, 692 (6th Cir. 2006)("A district court may deny a plaintiff leave to amend his or her complaint. . . when the proposed amendment would be futile.") In his Motion to Amend, plaintiff asks that he be permitted to assert claims of race and gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5. Defendant does not object, in theory, to plaintiff's motion as it relates to a claim of race discrimination, but does object to the assertion of a claim of gender discrimination. Defendant's Memorandum in Partial Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint, Doc. No. 30 [hereinafter "Memorandum contra Motion to Amend"]. In this regard, defendant notes that plaintiff included

allegations of race and disability discrimination in an administrative charge filed with the EEOC, but made no allegation of gender discrimination in his administrative charge. Id., Exhibit A. Plaintiff has not filed a

reply in support of this motion. A plaintiff wishing to file a lawsuit under Title VII must first file a charge of employment discrimination with the EEOC and receive the statutory notice of the right to sue. 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1). In

determining whether a plaintiff ­ particularly a pro se plaintiff ­ has met this prerequisite to suit, a court should construe the administrative complaint liberally so as "to encompass all charges reasonably expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination." Haithcock v. Frank, 958, 671,

675 (6th Cir. 1992). In filing his administrative charge, plaintiff utilized a standard EEOC form on which he checked the boxes relating to "race" and "disability" discrimination. Memorandum contra Motion to Amend, Exhibit A.

2

Although the form also provided a box relating to "sex" discrimination, plaintiff did not check that box. Id. Moreover, a claim of sex or gender

discrimination cannot reasonably be expected to grow out of a charge of race and disability that, discrimination. because Under did these not circumstances, his the Court

concludes

plaintiff

exhaust

administrative

remedies with respect to a claim of gender discrimination under Title VII, such a claim would be properly dismissed. It follows, then, that ­ as it

relates to a claim of gender discrimination ­ plaintiff's Motion to Amend would be futile and is therefore without merit. As it relates to a claim

of race discrimination, however, plaintiff's motion is meritorious.

Motion to Compel Plaintiff apparently requested production of "all memos between the hospital's administration or staff regarding any disciplinary actions against Plaintiff between 1995 - 2008." Motion to Compel, p. 1. In his

Motion to Compel, plaintiff appears to complain that defendant objected to this discovery request as "too vague and unduly burdensome." Id. However,

it appears that defendant has nevertheless produced all documents responsive to plaintiff's request. Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to

File a Complaint against Nationwide Children's Hospital, Doc. No. 32.1 Plaintiff does not offer any basis for concluding that defendant has failed to meet its discovery obligations in this case. therefore without merit. His Motion to Compel is

WHEREUPON plaintiff's Motion to Amend, Doc. No. 29, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. To the extent that plaintiff seeks leave to

In fact, it appears that defendant even produced ­ albeit inadvertently ­ at least one document protected by the attorney client privilege from disclosure to plaintiff. Motion to Compel, Exhibit A.

1

3

assert a claim of race discrimination under Title VII, the motion is GRANTED; to the extent that plaintiff seeks leave to assert a claim of gender discrimination under Title VII, the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff is

DIRECTED to file his amended complaint, consistent with this Opinion and Order, within ten (10) days. DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 31, is

May 10, 2010

s/Norah McCann King Norah McCann King United States Magistrate Judge

4