Amley v. Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation

Background

Ted Amley sued Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation for alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the New York Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion states that Amley worked for the defendant from August 2011 through November 2017 as Vice President and Assistant General Counsel. He alleged that he developed plantar fasciitis, requested medical accommodations, and was fired because of his disability and need for those accommodations.

The defendant filed an answer denying discrimination and denying knowledge of Amley’s medical condition. Shortly before the deadline for amending pleadings, the defendant says it discovered that Amley had retained privileged and confidential information after leaving his job. The defendant claimed that this conduct violated its internal policies and New York rules governing professional conduct. After attempts to resolve the issue, the defendant moved for permission to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense based on this after-acquired evidence.

Applicable Law

Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party generally needs the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s permission to amend a pleading after the initial amendment period. Courts generally allow amendments absent undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or legal futility. Because a scheduling order had set a deadline for amending pleadings, Rule 16(b)(4) also required the defendant to show good cause, which the court assessed primarily through the defendant’s diligence.

Analysis

The court found that the defendant acted diligently and in good faith. According to the opinion, the defendant notified Amley within a week of discovering the information, exchanged emails with him, sought his consent, and filed the motion after determining that the issue would not otherwise be resolved. The court found no undue delay.

The court also found no prejudice. Amley’s opposition did not identify additional discovery or investigative work that the amendment would require, and he had known about the proposed amendment for months. The court noted that Amley had initially consented to the amendment.

The court concluded that the proposed defense was not futile. After-acquired evidence cannot be used to claim that an employer acted for a nondiscriminatory reason based on information the employer did not know when it made the employment decision. But such evidence may affect the remedies available if the plaintiff succeeds, including front pay, reinstatement, or the period for which back pay may be awarded. The court held that the allegations about Amley’s alleged retention and disclosure of confidential information were not obviously insufficient for that purpose.

Finally, the court found that Rule 16(b)’s good-cause requirement was satisfied because the defendant’s response to the newly discovered information showed diligence. The proposed amendment was limited to information discovered two days before the amendment deadline.

Disposition

The court granted the defendant’s motion to amend its answer, denied any motion by Amley in opposition, directed the defendant to file a first amended answer by October 2, 2020, and directed the clerk to close the motion. The order addressed the pleading amendment only; it did not decide whether Amley’s employment claims or the alleged misconduct were ultimately proven.