Charlemagne v. The Educational Alliance, Inc.

Background

Patricia Charlemagne brought claims against The Educational Alliance, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion states that Charlemagne had worked for The Educational Alliance as “Counsel” and that the defendant described her as in-house counsel.

Charlemagne moved for leave to amend her complaint. The Educational Alliance did not oppose the amendment, but it moved to seal the original complaint in its entirety and to redact 13 paragraphs of the amended complaint. The defendant argued that the pleadings disclosed attorney-client-privileged and confidential communications concerning Charlemagne’s work as in-house counsel.

Court’s analysis

The court granted leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which generally allows amendments when justice requires and the opposing party does not object.

The court denied the request to seal the original complaint. It explained that complaints are judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. To overcome that presumption, a party must identify specific harm rather than rely on general concerns. The court also explained that a party seeking to preserve attorney-client privilege after public disclosure must act promptly to address the disclosure.

The original complaint was filed on February 9, 2022, but The Educational Alliance did not move to seal it until April 15, 2022. The court calculated that the defendant waited 65 days after filing, or 51 days even after accounting for the parties’ approximately one-week meet-and-confer period. The court also noted that the defendant’s outside counsel had received notice of the allegations and draft complaint before the filing, and that at least one news outlet had reported on the allegations shortly after filing. The court concluded that the delay was not prompt enough to overcome public access or avoid waiver of the privilege.

The court also denied the proposed redactions. It found that the challenged allegations either did not disclose communications or described communications unrelated to obtaining or providing legal advice. The allegations concerned Charlemagne’s own complaints about alleged discrimination and allegations of discrimination from other employees. The court found that these allegations did not, on their face, relate to obtaining or providing legal advice in her role as “Counsel.”

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Charlemagne’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. The court denied The Educational Alliance’s motion to seal the Initial Complaint and the Proposed Amended Complaint—Redline, denied the defendant’s motion to redact the Amended Complaint, and ordered Charlemagne to file the Amended Complaint within 14 days of the order’s filing. The opinion addressed amendment, sealing, and redaction; it did not decide the merits of Charlemagne’s discrimination claims.