Schaper v. The Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center
- Andrew Carter
- 1:17-cv-01246
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Schaper v. The Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center, Judge Carter granted leave to add a disparate-treatment discrimination claim.
Judith Schaper may amend her complaint to add a disparate-treatment claim; the Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center and Carol Wilson must respond to the amended pleading as required.
What happened
In Schaper v. The Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center, Judith Schaper sued the Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center and Carol Wilson over alleged retaliation and a hostile work environment under federal, state, and city civil-rights laws. The court had previously declined to consider disparate-treatment claims because they were not included in her complaint.
Schaper asked to amend her complaint to add that claim after the court denied the defendants’ request for summary judgment. The defendants argued that she had waited too long, had a delaying motive, and would unfairly prejudice them. The court found no evidence of bad faith and concluded that the amendment would not require significant additional discovery or substantially delay the case.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Schaper leave to amend her complaint for the limited purpose of adding a disparate-treatment claim. The court required her to file the amended complaint by January 10, 2020.
The detailed version
- Schaper v. The Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center · No. 1:17-cv-01246
- Andrew Carter
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
Judith Schaper brought claims against the Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center and Carol Wilson for retaliation and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
On September 30, 2019, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In that ruling, the court explained that Schaper’s opposition papers referred to disparate-treatment discrimination claims, but her complaint did not plead those claims. The court stated that it would not address claims raised for the first time in summary-judgment papers, while allowing Schaper to request permission to amend her complaint.
Motion to Amend
Schaper later filed a pre-motion conference letter requesting leave to amend. The court treated that letter as a motion to amend and directed the defendants to respond. After the defendants initially failed to respond by the deadline, the court ordered them to explain why the motion should not be treated as unopposed. The defendants then filed an opposition.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), once the period for amending without court permission has passed, a party may amend only with the opposing party’s consent or the court’s permission. The rule provides that courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires. Courts may deny leave because of undue delay, bad faith, unfair prejudice, or a futile proposed amendment.
The defendants argued that Schaper had delayed and had a dilatory motive, and that allowing amendment would unfairly prejudice them. The court disagreed. It found that Schaper’s belief that her complaint already included a disparate-treatment claim appeared genuine because she had addressed that theory in her opposition to summary judgment. The court also found no showing of bad faith.
The court concluded that the defendants had not shown undue prejudice. Schaper represented that no additional discovery was necessary because she intended to add information already obtained. The court further noted that no trial had been scheduled, so the amendment would not significantly delay resolution of the dispute.
Disposition
The court granted Schaper leave to amend her complaint for the limited purpose of adding a disparate-treatment claim. It ordered her to file the amended complaint on or before January 10, 2020.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.