White v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

Background

Keith White sued his former employer, Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP), alleging age and race discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. White worked in ADP’s Risk and Controls Group from April 2015 through May 2019. He alleged that ADP passed him over for promotion, reassigned his work, changed his commuting requirements, and terminated his employment in 2019.

White sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The proposed pleading would add retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and Section 1981. The proposed retaliation claims relied partly on allegations that, in or around 2016, White complained about workplace bias after an ADP employee allegedly prevented his work from reaching a senior ADP official. The motion was filed by the deadline in the court’s scheduling order.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) generally allows amendment of a complaint when justice requires, but a court may deny leave when the amendment would be futile. An amendment is futile if the proposed claim could not survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief.

For purposes of this motion, the court accepted the factual allegations in White’s proposed complaint as true and drew reasonable inferences in his favor. The question was whether those allegations were legally sufficient, not whether the court had found them proven.

Timeliness of the State and City Retaliation Claims

The parties agreed that the proposed Section 1981 retaliation claim was timely under the applicable four-year limitations period. They also agreed that the proposed state and city retaliation claims were untimely unless an exception applied. The court stated that those claims were subject to a three-year limitations period and that the latest alleged retaliatory act—White’s termination on May 7, 2019—occurred more than three years before the proposed amendment.

White argued that the state and city claims should be treated as timely because they related back to his original complaint. Under the relation-back rule, a new claim may be treated as filed on the date of the original pleading when it arises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence described in that earlier pleading.

The court rejected that argument. White’s original complaint focused on alleged events in 2018 and 2019 and did not mention the alleged 2016 conduct, Palanques, Cloutier, Gasten, the unnamed ADP employee, or the mediator. The proposed amendments therefore relied on new allegations, newly identified individuals, and a different time period. Because the original complaint gave ADP no notice of those matters, the court held that the proposed state and city retaliation claims did not relate back and were time-barred.

Causation for All Proposed Retaliation Claims

The court separately held that all three proposed retaliation claims failed to plausibly allege causation. A retaliation claim must allege a connection between the protected activity—such as complaining about discrimination—and the later adverse employment action.

The proposed complaint alleged a gap of about 40 months between White’s alleged protected activity in 2016 and his termination in May 2019. Even using the earlier alleged adverse action, White’s non-promotion in October 2018, and assuming that his protected activity occurred as late as December 2016, the gap was at least 22 months. The court found that the proposed complaint alleged no additional facts supporting a causal connection during that period.

The court concluded that the proposed Section 1981 retaliation claim lacked a plausible causal connection. For the same reasons, the proposed state and city retaliation claims lacked causation as well, in addition to being untimely.

Ruling

Judge Rochon denied White’s motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint because amendment would be futile. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion. Because the court found amendment futile on the stated grounds, it did not reach ADP’s other arguments in opposition to the motion. The opinion addressed the requested amendment; it did not state that the entire action was dismissed.