Monica Prosper v. Thomson Reuters et.al

Background

Monica Prosper sued her former employer, identified in the caption as Thomson Reuters Inc. and in the opinion’s text as Thomson Reuters (GRC), Inc. Prosper alleged that she experienced unfair treatment, witnessed racially insensitive comments, reported those matters, and was terminated in November 2012 in retaliation for reporting racial discrimination. She also alleged that she was replaced by an employee outside the protected class and younger than 40.

Prosper had already amended her complaint once. Her proposed second amended complaint sought to add four categories of claims: race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law; wrongful discharge; and failure to contribute to New York’s unemployment-insurance fund.

Timing of the Motion

The court had entered a scheduling order that did not authorize further amendments. Prosper first moved to amend one day before discovery was scheduled to close, then withdrew that motion. She filed the motion addressed in this opinion only after the court directed her to do so, and after discovery had closed. The proposed complaint was not materially different from the withdrawn version and did not add facts that Prosper had learned during discovery.

Legal Standard

The court considered Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which generally allows amendment when justice requires, and Rule 16(b), which requires a party to show good cause to change a scheduling order. The court explained that good cause requires diligence—meaning that the party must show that the deadline could not reasonably have been met despite diligent efforts.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Rule 16’s good-cause standard was appropriate because a scheduling order had been in place for more than eighteen months. It further held that the motion was untimely under either Rule 16 or the more lenient Rule 15 standard. Prosper had waited years after filing the action and offered no excuse for the extreme delay. The court noted that Prosper conceded the motion could have been filed earlier.

The court also stated that the amendments would be futile even if the request had been timely. Futility means that the proposed allegations, accepted as true and viewed favorably to the person seeking amendment, still would not plausibly support legal relief. The proposed wrongful-discharge claim was futile because, according to the court, New York law does not recognize that claim for an at-will employee, and Prosper conceded that point. The proposed unemployment-law claim was unsupported by specific facts. The court also stated that the proposed § 1981 and New York City Human Rights Law discrimination claims were likely barred by their respective limitations periods. The opinion notes that Prosper did not argue that those claims should relate back to the original complaint.

Disposition

Judge Ona T. Wang denied Prosper’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. The order directed the parties to jointly propose, within 14 days, a briefing schedule for any summary-judgment motions and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion docket entry.