Tuan v. Flatrate Moving Network, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-04264
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Tuan v. Flatrate, Judge Schofield denied leave to amend because the proposed Title VII claims remained untimely or inadequately pleaded.
Chin Tuan and Flatrate Moving Network, LLC; the ruling denied Tuan permission to file another amended complaint and closed the case.
What happened
In Tuan v. Flatrate Moving Network, LLC, Chin Tuan asked to file another amended complaint after the court dismissed his Title VII claims and declined jurisdiction over related state-law claims. The case was before U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield.
The court found that claims based on Tuan’s 2013–2014 employment were still too late. It also found that the proposed complaint did not adequately allege a materially harmful employment action, opposition to an unlawful employment practice, or a sufficiently severe or widespread hostile work environment during his 2017 employment.
Judge Schofield denied Tuan’s motion for leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile, and directed the clerk to close the motion and the case.
The detailed version
- Tuan v. Flatrate Moving Network, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-04264
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 4, 2020
Background
The court had previously dismissed Chin Tuan’s Second Amended Complaint. That earlier order dismissed his Title VII claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York Labor Law § 198-c(1). The earlier order also allowed Tuan to ask for permission to file another complaint if he had additional facts that could support a Title VII claim.
Tuan, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion for leave to amend and a proposed Third Amended Complaint. Flatrate Moving Network, LLC opposed the motion, and Tuan filed a reply.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) generally calls for permission to amend a complaint when justice requires. But a court may deny leave when the proposed amendment would be futile, meaning the new complaint could not survive dismissal. Amendment is also futile when proposed claims would be barred by the applicable time limit.
The court found that the proposed complaint repeated the same problems identified in the earlier order. Claims based on Flatrate’s employment of Tuan from about July 2013 through September 2014 remained time-barred under Title VII.
The proposed complaint also did not adequately plead a Title VII discrimination claim based on Tuan’s employment from June 11 through June 20, 2017. The court found that sporadic assignments to less lucrative jobs, together with an allegation that Tuan received a high-commission job on June 17, did not sufficiently allege a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment.
The proposed complaint did not adequately plead retaliation because it did not show that Tuan opposed an employment practice that Title VII makes unlawful. It also did not adequately plead a hostile work environment. The allegations concerning coworkers calling Tuan “Chino,” others saying his name in a sarcastic or belittling tone, and undesirable work and team assignments did not show conduct severe or pervasive enough to make the workplace hostile or abusive.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that Tuan’s motion for leave to amend be denied because the proposed amendment would be futile. The court also ordered Flatrate to serve Tuan with the order by December 10, 2020, file proof of service, and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket No. 38 and close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.