Jenkins v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation

Background

Fred Jenkins, proceeding without a lawyer, sued NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation ("H&H") and Kevin Matulich. He alleged race-based disparate treatment, a racially hostile work environment, and retaliation for reporting alleged racial discrimination. The court had previously allowed Jenkins to seek permission to add a Title VII claim against H&H, but he did not file the required amended complaint by the deadline.

Jenkins later moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 for permission to file a third amended complaint. The proposed complaint would add Jamie Grecco, identified as a former Personnel Director for H&H’s Human Resources department, and would add breach-of-contract claims against H&H, Matulich, and Grecco. It would also expand Jenkins’s existing claims.

Legal standard

Because Jenkins sought amendment after the scheduling-order deadline, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires good cause to change that deadline. The court also considered Rule 15’s general instruction that permission to amend should generally be freely given. Amendment may be denied if it would be futile, meaning the proposed claim could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

The court also construed Jenkins’s filing liberally because he was proceeding without a lawyer. It treated his Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim against Grecco as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for certain constitutional violations committed under state authority.

Constitutional claim against Grecco

The court granted Jenkins permission to add the constitutional claim against Grecco. Jenkins said he learned more about Grecco’s involvement from materials provided by the defendants’ counsel while preparing for discovery. The court found that Jenkins filed the proposed claim shortly after learning those additional facts and therefore showed the required diligence.

The court also found that the defendants had not shown undue prejudice. The new claim arose from the same facts as Jenkins’s existing claims, discovery had only begun, and adding the claim would not require significant additional discovery or substantially delay the case. The defendants also had not argued that the constitutional claim would be futile.

Breach-of-contract claims

The court denied permission to add the proposed breach-of-contract claims against H&H, Matulich, and Grecco. Jenkins acknowledged that he knew enough information to assert those claims when he filed the original action. His later realization, based on legal research, that he might have a breach-of-contract claim did not establish good cause for missing the amendment deadline.

The court also ruled that the proposed contract claims would be futile. Under New York law, employment is generally presumed to be at will unless an enforceable agreement limits the employer’s ability to terminate employment. Jenkins relied on H&H’s supervisory evaluation guidelines and personnel rules, but he did not allege that H&H or an authorized representative made him aware of a policy limiting termination or that he relied on such a policy in accepting or continuing employment.

The court concluded that Jenkins had not rebutted the presumption of at-will employment and had not alleged the facts required to establish an implied employment contract. Because the alleged implied contract was between Jenkins and H&H, the court also concluded that Jenkins could not state breach-of-contract claims against Matulich or Grecco on that theory.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl granted in part and denied in part Jenkins’s motion to amend the complaint. The court granted permission to add the constitutional claim against Grecco and to expand the existing claims. It denied permission to add the breach-of-contract claims. The clerk was directed to close the motion.