Andino v. Gem Quality Construction Inc.

Background

Tabetha Andino brought six claims alleging sex discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation under federal, state, and local law. The original complaint named Gem Quality Construction, Inc. and Muhammed Tahir as defendants. Andino later sought permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file an amended complaint substituting Gem Quality Corporation for Gem Quality Construction, Inc. The proposed amended complaint otherwise was identical to the original complaint.

Before filing this lawsuit, Andino had filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge against “GEM Quality Construction, Inc.” The Corporation became aware of the charge and told Andino that she had named the wrong company. She did not amend the charge to name the Corporation. Andino was represented by counsel when she filed the charge.

After the lawsuit began, the Corporation’s counsel identified the Corporation as the company that had been improperly named as Gem Quality Construction, Inc. Andino later filed an amended complaint without first obtaining the court’s permission. The court struck that pleading from the docket and denied the Corporation’s earlier motion to dismiss as moot. Andino then filed the motion addressed in this order.

Court’s analysis

The Corporation argued that the proposed amendment would be futile because Andino had not exhausted the required administrative remedies for Title VII claims against the Corporation. Generally, a person must first file an appropriate charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and receive a notice of the right to sue before bringing Title VII claims in federal court. The civil action is generally limited to the respondent named in the charge.

The court considered the limited exception for an unnamed party when the named and unnamed parties have a sufficiently clear identity of interests. It concluded that the exception could not excuse Andino’s failure because she had counsel when she filed the charge. The court also found that the relevant factors weighed against applying the exception: the Corporation had promptly informed Andino that she had named the wrong company; the record did not show enough overlap between the Corporation and Gem Quality Construction, Inc.; and there was no allegation that the Corporation was identified in the body of the charge as having participated in the alleged discrimination. The court noted that the Corporation appeared not to have been prejudiced by its omission from the charge, but found that the other factors weighed strongly against the exception.

Because the Corporation was not named in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge and the exception did not apply, the court concluded that Andino had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for her Title VII claims against the Corporation. The proposed federal claims therefore could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court further concluded that it could not properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the proposed state and local claims if no federal claims survived. The court did not address the Corporation’s other arguments concerning futility or undue delay.

Ruling and order to show cause

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Andino’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The court held that the Corporation was not a party to the action and that the original complaint remained the operative pleading.

The court separately ordered Andino to show cause in writing, by April 21, 2025, why: (1) her federal claims against Gem Quality Construction, Inc. should not be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b) as abandoned, based on her acknowledgment that she had no proper claim against that company; and (2) her state and local claims against Gem Quality Construction, Inc. and Muhammed Tahir should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to bringing them in a different forum. The order stated that failure to respond on time would result in dismissal on those terms, without further advance notice. The opinion did not itself enter those proposed dismissals.