Shwiyhat v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Background

Austen Shwiyhat sued his former employer, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., asserting employment-related claims including harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. The opinion states that Shwiyhat worked for Martin Marietta as a plant operator beginning in October 2021, after Martin Marietta acquired the business of his former employer, Lehigh Hanson, Inc. The opinion does not resolve whether Martin Marietta could be liable for events that occurred while Shwiyhat worked for Lehigh Hanson.

Shwiyhat alleged that he did not receive timely meal breaks, that two supervisors made inappropriate and derogatory comments and manipulated work schedules, and that a coworker sexually assaulted him at work in early 2022. He also alleged that the company did not respond appropriately to his reports and that he faced increased hostility and retaliation. After a July 5, 2022, incident involving equipment lockout procedures, he was suspended and ultimately terminated for allegedly violating the company’s Lockout/Tagout policy.

Proposed amendment

Shwiyhat sought leave to file an amended complaint. The proposed amendment added further allegations about physical assaults against Shwiyhat but otherwise did not substantially change his allegations or claims. Its primary change was adding Reyes De La Torre, another former Martin Marietta employee, as a plaintiff.

The proposed complaint alleged that De La Torre experienced the same hostile work environment, comments, treatment by supervisors, and similar physical assaults. It did not allege that De La Torre experienced or reported a specific genital punch, and the retaliation allegations focused on Shwiyhat. De La Torre alleged that the workplace became intolerable and forced him to resign, which he characterized as constructive discharge.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that amendments are generally allowed liberally so that cases can be decided on their merits. It concluded, however, that Shwiyhat had not shown that adding De La Torre in this case was warranted. The court stated that the two plaintiffs could likely have joined their claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1), which allows permissive joinder in specified circumstances, but that severance could be appropriate to avoid prejudice. The court also cited a prior case involving individual employment claims against a common employer in which severance had been affirmed.

The court further reasoned that, if De La Torre filed a separate case, the two cases likely would not be treated as related under Civil Local Rule 3-12. Similar claims against the same defendant would not necessarily involve substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or event, and the court found no sufficient likelihood of burdensome duplication or conflicting results before different judges.

Disposition

The court denied Shwiyhat’s motion for leave to amend, without prejudice to a revised amended complaint that adds the further factual allegations about Shwiyhat included in the proposed amendment. The court stated that Martin Marietta would be expected to stipulate to an amended complaint that omitted De La Torre and did not otherwise go beyond the proposal submitted with the motion. The court did not decide the merits of Shwiyhat’s or De La Torre’s underlying claims.