Opinion
Civil Action 2:09-CV-854.
April 30, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an employment action in which plaintiff alleges that she was constructively discharged as a result of sex discrimination. In her original complaint, plaintiff asserted claims of sex discrimination in violation of O. R. C. §§ 4112.02, .99 and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff also asserted a breach of contract claim, alleging that defendants acted in breach of terms established in the employee handbook. Defendants removed the action to this Court, contending that at least certain of plaintiff's claims were preempted by 29 U.S.C. § 185 because plaintiff's employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss Count III of her original complaint, i.e. the breach of contract claim. Doc. No. 14. Plaintiff also filed a motion to remand the action to state court. Doc. No. 15.
This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Doc. No. 20.
In her proposed amended complaint, plaintiff omits the breach of contract claim but reasserts the original claims of sex discrimination in violation of Ohio law and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She also proposed additional claims under Ohio's common law, including failure to provide a safe work environment and negligent retention. Exhibit attached to Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Defendant does not oppose the motion so long as plaintiff agrees to dismiss any John Doe defendants and XYZ corporations. Doc. No. 29. In this regard, defendants represent that plaintiff's proper employer is Ameritech Publishing, Inc. Id, p. 2.
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." F.R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). "[T]he thrust of Rule 15 is to reinforce the principle that cases `should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings.'" Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986) quoting Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1982).
The Court concludes that plaintiff should be granted leave to amend her complaint to omit the breach of contract claim and to assert additional claims. However, the Court agrees that the amended complaint should omit any reference to John Doe defendants and XYZ corporations. The proposed amended complaint asserts no claim against any such individuals or entities. Under these circumstances, the Court will require that plaintiff file an amended complaint that omits any reference to John Doe defendants or XYZ corporations. Moreover, the Court notes that the entity represented by defendants to be plaintiff's actual employer, i.e., Ameritech Publishing, Inc., is not expressly named in the proposed amended complaint. Should plaintiff wish to expressly name Ameritech Publishing, Inc., as a defendant, the amended complaint may do so.
The amended complaint may also incorporate any other changes or terms agreed to by the parties.
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint, Doc. No. 20, is therefore GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, in conformity with this Opinion and Order, within 7 days.
In light of the grant of plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint, plaintiff's motion to dismiss Count III of the original complaint, Doc. No. 14, has been rendered moot. The Clerk is directed to remove that motion from the Court's pending motions list.