Khan v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.

Background

Saifullah Khan brought an employment-discrimination action against A100 US, LLC and Amazon Web Services, Inc. He alleged age and national-origin discrimination and asserted claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and following, and the California Labor Code. He also alleged wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Khan moved for permission to file an amended complaint. The proposed amendment would add Amazon.com, Inc., which Khan alleged was one of his employers and the parent company of A100 and AWS; remove Labor Code claims concerning business-expense reimbursements and withheld wages; and add facts about alleged false statements concerning his English-language proficiency and work performance. The proposed complaint also alleged that defendants destroyed contemporaneous documents related to his termination.

The defendants opposed adding Amazon.com, Inc., arguing that there was no legal or factual basis for doing so and that Khan had waited too long to seek the amendment.

Court’s Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), courts should generally allow amendments when justice requires, but may deny them for prejudice, bad faith, undue delay, or futility. Futility means that the proposed amendment would not state a legally sufficient claim. The court applies the same legal-sufficiency standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, accepting the proposed complaint’s factual allegations as true at this stage.

The court found no evidence that the amendment would prejudice the defendants. Fact discovery was still open for more than three months, and adding Amazon.com, Inc. would not require completely reopening discovery after it closed. The court also found no evidence of bad faith. It concluded that any delay was not undue, noting Khan’s change in counsel, his recent discovery of alleged document destruction, and the parties’ communications about filing an amended complaint.

The court also rejected the defendants’ futility argument. At this stage, it had to accept as true Khan’s allegations that Amazon.com, Inc. was his joint employer and acted collectively with the other defendants. The court stated that California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act can reach joint employers and therefore could not conclude that the proposed amendments were legally futile.

Disposition

The court granted Khan’s motion for leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2). It ordered him to file the proposed amended complaint within three court days, continued the December 3, 2020 case-management conference to December 10, 2020, and stated that the order disposed of docket entry 39. The order did not decide the merits of Khan’s underlying claims.