Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Labor Solutions of Al LLC
Decision Date | 01 November 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No.: 4:16-CV-1848-VEH |
Parties | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. LABOR SOLUTIONS OF AL LLC, f/k/a EAST COAST LABOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC" or the "Commission"), brings this civil action "on behalf of Oscar Corzo, Jorge Mercado, and a class of at least eight other Charging Parties and aggrieved individuals" (the "Claimants"). (Doc. 1 at 1). In the original Complaint1, the EEOC named Labor Solutions of Alabama, LLC ("LSA") as the Defendant and contended that it "was formed to assume the business operations previously performed by" a company named East Coast Labor Solutions, LLC ("East Coast"). (Doc. 1 at 2). In that originalComplaint, the EEOC also claimed that East Coast: "subjected Claimants to discriminatory treatment based on their national origin," in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e through 2000e-17 ("Title VII") (doc. 1 at 1); and "failed to accommodate [the Claimant's] disabilities" in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (the "ADA"). (Doc. 1 at 1).2
On February 3, 2017, LSA moved to dismiss the Complaint "pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or, alternatively, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)." (Doc. 14 at 1). In a lengthy opinion, this Court granted that motion, finding that "the EEOC . . . failed to plausibly allege that LSA is the successor to East Coast," and that the EEOC failed to exhaust administrative prerequisites to filing suit. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Labor Sols. of AL LLC, 242 F. Supp. 3d 1267, 1282, 1284 (N.D. Ala. 2017) (Hopkins, J.). However, the Court allowed the EEOC to file an Amended Complaint "which cures the deficiencies noted herein." Labor Sols., 242 F. Supp. 3d at 1284.
On April 18, 2017, the EEOC filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 36). On April 18, 2017, this Court struck the Amended Complaint, which had, without leaveof Court, or written permission of the opposing parties, added three new Defendants: East Coast Labor Solutions, LLC ("East Coast"); Labor Solutions, LLC ("LS"), and East Coast Labor Solutions of West Virginia, LLC ("East Coast WV"). (Doc. 36 at 1).3
On May 1, 2017, the EEOC filed a Motion for Leave To File (doc. 38) (the "Motion") the stricken Amended Complaint. For the reasons stated herein, the motion will be GRANTED.
The proposed Amended Complaint contains the following pertinent4 factual allegations relevant to whether the EEOC satisfied the administrative prerequisites prior to filing suit:
(Doc. 38-2 at 4-7, ¶¶3-17).5
The Eleventh Circuit has stated:
Unless otherwise specified, a party may amend its pleading "only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a)(2). The Rule goes on to state that "[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Id. Despite the rule that leave to amend should be given freely, the court may deny leave to amend on numerous grounds, including the futility of the amendment. Maynard v. Bd. of Regents of Div. of Univs. of Florida Dept. of Educ. ex rel. Univ. of S. Florida, 342 F.3d 1281, 1287 (11th Cir.2003). Futility justifies the denial of leave to amend where the complaint, as amended,would still be subject to dismissal. Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1320 (11th Cir.1999) (citations omitted).
Patel v. Georgia Dep't BHDD, 485 F. App'x 982, 982 (11th Cir. 2012). LSA argues that the Motion should be denied because filing the Amended Complaint would be futile as to LS, LSA, and East Coast WV. Specifically, LSA alleges that, as to these entities, the EEOC failed to exhaust the administrative prerequisites to filing suit.6
As noted above (see note 5), in the original Complaint the EEOC alleged that "[m]ore than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Parties filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII and the ADA by Defendant East Coast." (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶8) (emphasis supplied). The new allegations in paragraph 8 of the proposed Amended Complaint state that the Claimants filed the charge "alleging violations of Title VII and the ADA by Defendants." (Doc. 38-2 at 5, ¶8) (emphasis added). Amazingly, the actual charge appears nowhere in the record. However, the proposed Amended Complaint alleges that "Claimants, in their charges, identified their employer as "'East Coast Labor Solutions, Inc.'" (doc. 38-2 at 5, ¶8), and the EEOC does not argue that any entityother than East Coast was actually named.7 Accordingly, the Court assumes that it is undisputed that Defendants LSA, LS, and East Coast WV were not named in the charge.
The Eleventh Circuit has noted:
To continue reading
Request your trial