Schlaff v. Taprite Fassco Manufacturing, Inc.
Filing
28
ORDER GRANTING IN PART 24 Motion for Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (aej)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
ELOISA GUTIERREZ SCHLAFF,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TAPRITE FASSCO
MANUFACTURING, INC.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. SA:14–CV–565–DAE
(consolidated with)
No. SA:14–CV–801–DAE
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND
Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to Amend filed by Defendant
Taprite Fassco Manufacturing, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Dkt. # 24.) Defendant asks
the Court for leave to file its First Amended Answers to Plaintiff-Intervenor Eloisa
Gutierrez Schlaff’s (“Schlaff”) and Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission’s (“EEOC”) First Amended Complaints. (Id.) Pursuant to Local
Rule CV-7(h), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a
hearing. After reviewing the Motion, for the reasons that follow, the Court
GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend. (Dkt. # 24.)
BACKGROUND
On June 23, 2014, Schlaff initiated this litigation by filing her
Original Complaint in this Court. (Dkt. # 1.) Schlaff alleges that since at least
1
April of 2010, Defendant violated Sections 6(d)(1) and 16(a)(2) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d)(1) and 215(a)(2), by paying lower
wages to female “inspectors” at its San Antonio facility than it paid to male
employees in the same division for substantially equal work. (Id. ¶ 9.) Schlaff
further alleges that when she complained to management about being paid less
than male employees in her division for substantially equal work, she was demoted
and later terminated in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity in violation
of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). (Id. ¶ 11.)
On September 10, 2014, the EEOC filed a Complaint against
Defendant in a separate case, Civil Action No. SA:14–CV–801–DAE, alleging that
Defendant paid Schlaff at a lower rather than it paid to a male employee for the
same or substantially equal work, that Defendant discriminated against Schlaff by
disciplining and demoting her in retaliation for her complaints of sex-based pay
discrimination, and that Defendant discriminated against Schlaff in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by ignoring, rejecting, and denying her
requests for reasonable accommodations for her disabilities. (Dkt. # 1.) On
December 19, 2014, the Court consolidated the two cases.
On January 27, 2015, Schlaff filed her First Amended Complaint to
include ADA claims and allegations that Defendant discriminated against her by
paying her lower wages than it paid to similarly-situated male employees and
2
disciplined and demoted her in response to her complaints, in violation of Title
VII. (Dkt. # 18.) On February 5, 2015, the EEOC filed its First Amended
Complaint. (Dkt. # 20.) On February 10, 2015, Defendant filed an Answer to
Schlaff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 22), and on February 19, 2015, Defendant
filed an Answer to the EEOC’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 23).
LEGAL STANDARD
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21
days after serving it, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of
a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is
earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its
pleading 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)(2).
Because Rule 15(a) evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to amend,
Price v. Pinnacle Brands, Inc., 138 F.3d 602, 608 (5th Cir. 1998), a district court
“must possess a substantial reason to deny a request for leave to amend.” Smith v.
EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, the Fifth Circuit uses five factors in
determining whether to grant a party leave to amend a complaint: 1) undue delay,
2) bad faith or dilatory motive, 3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous
3
amendments, 4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, and 5) futility of the
amendment. Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir. 2003)
(citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
DISCUSSION
Defendant asks the Court for leave to file its Amended Answers to
Schlaff’s and the EEOC’s First Amended Complaints. (Dkt. # 24 at 1.) The
Amended Answers include a reservation of the right to assert additional affirmative
defenses uncovered as the case develops. (Id.) Defendant filed its Motion within
the time allowed by the Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 15), and submits that
the proposed Amended Answers are not made for the purposes of harassment or
delay and that there is no likelihood that Schlaff or the EEOC will suffer any
prejudice as a result of the amendments. (Dkt. # 24 at 1.) Defense counsel
conferred with counsel for Schlaff and the EEOC prior to filing the Motion. (Id. at
2.) Counsel for Schlaff and the EEOC indicated that they are not opposed to
allowing Defendant to file its Amended Answers, but the EEOC is opposed to
language contained in the Amended Answer that reserves the right to amend the
Answer with additional defenses as further information is obtained. (Id.) Because
the parties have given their consent to the amendments, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion to the extent that it is unopposed.
4
Defendant’s proposed Amended Answers to both Schlaff’s and the
EEOC’s First Amended Complaints include the following language: “Defendant
reserves the right to rely upon such other defenses and affirmative defenses as may
become available or apparent during discovery proceedings in this case.” (Dkt.
# 24, Ex. 1 ¶ 21; Id. Ex. 2 ¶20.) Counsel for the EEOC indicated that it is opposed
to this language, although the EEOC did not file a Response to Defendant’s
Motion.
Although courts have expressed skepticism that this language
constitutes an affirmative defense under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Klein v. Fed. Ins. Co., Nos. 7:03-CV-102-D, 7:09-CV-094-D, 2014 WL
4476556, at *8 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 2014), district courts have generally permitted
defendants to include similar language in their answers so long as it is clear that a
defendant is bound by Rule 15 with respect to any future amendment. See
Schlesinger v. W.L. & R, Inc., No. CIV.A. 13-5829, 2014 WL 669122, at *2 (E.D.
La. Feb. 20, 2014) (permitting the defense but advising defendant that it could not
file a supplemental answer without obtaining leave from the court in accordance
with Rule 15); F.T.C. v. Verma Holdings, LLC, No. 4:13-XC-00594, 2013 WL
4506033, at *8 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2013) (finding no need to strike the defense
because “Defendants’ acknowledgement of Rule 15 suggests their affirmative
defense is not an attempt to circumvent it”); Solis v. Bruister, No. 4:10CV77-DPJ5
FKB, 2012 WL 776028, at *7 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 8, 2012) (finding no need to strike
the defense where defendants conceded that they were “bound by the requirements
and conditions in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to possible future
amendments of their Answer”). Thus, the Court will not strike the language to
which the EEOC objects, but ORDERS Defendant to amend its proposed
Amended Answers to state: “Defendant reserves the right to seek to amend this
Answer with additional defenses, pursuant to the applicable Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, as further information is obtained.”
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend. (Dkt. # 24.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: San Antonio, Texas, April 10, 2015.
_____________________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States Distict Judge
6
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?