United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
COLIN H. LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff James Ricky Blade ("Blade") for leave to file an amended complaint. (DN 35.) Defendant TJX Companies, Inc. ("TJX") filed a response (DN 41) and Blade filed a reply. (DN 47.) The motion is now ripe for review. Blade's existing complaint alleges one claim of racial discrimination. Blade, an African American, alleges that TJX discriminated against him on the basis of his race when he was laterally transferred as store manager of TJX's Westport Road store to store manager of its Southland Terrace store and then replaced at the Westport Store by a white female, Jennifer Farris.
Blade now seeks leave to amend his complaint to add two counts: (1) Count II, an additional disparate treatment claim, alleging that TJX should have disciplined him utilizing its progressive discipline procedures rather than transferring him to the Southland Terrace store; and (2) Count III, a breach of contract claim arising from TJX's personnel policies and procedures manual, which Blade alleges constitutes a contract between TJX and its employees. For the following reasons, Blade's motion for leave to amend is DENIED.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Blade brought a single claim in Jefferson Circuit Court in May 2014, asserting that TJX violated the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KRS 344). (DN 1, Page ID # 1 ¶ 1.) In May 2014, the case was removed to this Court. (DN 1, PageID # 2.) In August 2014, the Court adopted the parties' joint proposed scheduling order, which stipulated an amendments and pleadings cutoff on October 21, 2014, a discovery cutoff on April 30, 2015, and dispositive motions cutoff on June 30, 2015. (DN 14, PageID # 2.) In August 2014, TJX served its first set of written discovery requests. Blade responded in October 2014 and November 2014. (DN 41, PageID # 314 ¶ 3.)
Blade originally served interrogatories and requests for production of documents in October 2014, requesting the personnel files of several TJX managers, but not the personnel file of Paula Runner (the former Store Manager of the Elizabethtown store whom Blade replaced in March 2014). (DN 41, PageID # 315 ¶ 4.) In its response, TJX represents that it first responded on December 5, 2014, supplying Blade with 295 pages of documents. ( Id. ) According to TJX, the production included numerous documents relating to Blade's job performance. (DN 41, PageID # 315 ¶ 5.) On April 20, 2015, TJX deposed Blade, who testified that District Manager John Joyce ("Joyce") had repeatedly spoken to him about the poor performance of the Westport Road store and that, among other things, Joyce stated that Blade's "management team was broken." (DN 41, PageID # 315 ¶ 6.) Blade then took a leave from August 2013 until October 2013; Jennifer Farris acted as the Westport Road store manager during his leave. (DN 41, PageID # 315 ¶ 7.) When Blade returned from his leave, Joyce transferred him to the Southland Terrace store where Blade held the same position, pay, and benefits. (DN 41, PageID # 315 ¶ 8.)
Blade's counsel deposed Joyce in April 2015. (DN 41, PageID # 316 ¶ 10.) Joyce testified that Blade was replaced due to poor work performance. Id. Additionally, Joyce stated that TJX's progressive disciplinary procedures consist of a four-step process: (1) Counsel; (2) Course of corrective action (action plan); (3) Written warning; and (4) Termination. (DN 41-4, PageID # 348.) Joyce further stated that he used these progressive disciplinary procedures on Paula Runner, the white female manager of the Elizabethtown store, before unfortunately having to terminate her employment. (DN 41-4, PageID # 348.) According to Blade, Joyce admitted that he did not accord the same process to Blade. (DN 35, PageID # 291.)
Blade now asserts that he had no way of knowing the specific facts that arose in Joyce's deposition testimony before filing his complaint. As a result of this purportedly new-found information, Blade filed his Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint on May 19, 2015, seeking to add Counts II and III. (DN 41, PageID # 316 ¶ 12.) TJX filed its response on June 9, 2015, and Blade filed his reply on June 19, 2015. (DN 41, PageID # 312; DN 47, PageID # 363).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Additionally, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(B), the two additional counts that Blade wishes to assert must "assert a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out-or attempted to be set out-in the original pleading." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(B).
"[W]hen [an] amendment is sought at a late stage in the litigation, there is an increased burden to show justification for failing to move earlier." Wade v. Knoxville Utils. Bd., 259 F.3d 452, 458 (6th Cir. 2001). Under Rule 15(a), "[c]ourts have explained numerous factors that a District Court should consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend." Brooks v. Celeste, 39 F.3d 125, 130 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Head v. Jellico Hous. Auth., 870 F.2d 1117, 1123 (6th Cir.1989) (quoting Hageman v. Signal L.P. Gas, Inc., 486 F.2d 479, 484 (6th Cir. 1973)). These factors include "undue delay in filing, lack of notice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment." Id. "[D]elay by itself is not sufficient reason to deny a motion to amend [but] notice and substantial prejudice to the opposing party are critical factors when determining whether an amendment should be granted." Id.
Finally, Rule 16(b)(4) states that "a schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). The Court adopted a scheduling order on August 12, 2014 which stipulated an amendments and pleadings cutoff on October 21, 2014. (DN 14.) Therefore, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 must be considered alongside Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 because failure to do so "would render scheduling orders meaningless and effectively would read Rule 16(b) and its good cause requirement out of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 908 (6th Cir. 2003).
Blade argues that the motion to amend his original complaint should be granted because it (1) will not unduly prejudice TJX; and (2) will further the interests of judicial economy. Blade claims that until Joyce's deposition on April 30, 2015 (the last day of discovery), he had no way of discovering ...