Free Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Q {5, Case 3:00-cv-00656-SRU Document 84 Filed O3/30/2004 Page 1 of 4 I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTF; @ l
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
$-*2-*8-5I-if-8-BI-9l·5l·9I·>I·$!·$I·$I•$I·¤I·¤l·3|·$I·¤I-$¥·>I-•I'-SHI-ll-SI-QFSI-9I·9¢·$I·$I·$I·>I·>I·¤f· A Hz 3 I
8-il-I-
MARSHALL CHAMBERS ’* U g g;5;Ta1B‘{ COURT
* BR`lU€3EPUR`i. Cllltai
* CIVIL No. 3:00CV00656(SRU)
v. * F
’“ l
ANTHONY PRINCIPI, SECRETARY, * Q
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS * March 27, 2004
AFFAIRS *
5H!-$·¤F>I->I-tl-il-¤!·5I-SI-$l·¤I·tl-¤I·=f·il-ll->}·¤l·=I·=G·>|·¤I·#->HI-$HHF$F$t-¤I·$F¤I·»I-¤I·¤I·¤F>P>I·=F
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT A
Pursuant to FRCP 15, Plaintiff, Marshall Chambers, hereby moves this Court for
leave to amend his Complaint, in accordance with the attached Amended
Complaint. y
In support of this motion, Plaintiff represents as follows: I
1. The Plaintiffs original complaint alleged among other things that: i
Defendant demoted and reassigned him; suspended him;
violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement. ..
N
As an employee of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was a union i
member and all parties in this lawsuit are subject to Collective a
Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Notwithstanding this, the i
Defendant violated the Plaintiffs CBA's rights.
2. As to the CBA, Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint sets forth two
counts. One count sounds in breach of contract, having to do with
contractual violations the CBA. The other count alleges a breach of the I
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
3. The contract claim, as set forth in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, relates
l
back to the CBA issue, of which the Defendant had notice.
1
-- C C
gg __ F-

l
`* `éi Case 3:00-cv-00656-SRU Document 84 Filed O3/30/2004 Page 2 of 4
4. Even as recently as March 19, 2004, Defendant listed the CBA as I
Defendant's Exhibit 19 for trial scheduled for April 5, 2004.
5. A covenant of good faith and fair dealing is inherent in every contract,
including the CBA, referenced above. There is therefore no surprise
element, or prejudice in Plaintiff' s asserting these claims at this particular
juncture.
6. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint further separates his causes of action, and
alleges, in separate counts, that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff
based his race, color and his gender in violation of Title VII. These causes
of action arose out of the Defendants refusal, or failure to promote
Plaintiff, as required by the first desk audit in September 1996. i
7. Plaintiff, Chambers, an African-American, was qualified for the position I
he held. He had been recommended by the Defendants HRMS for a
promotion to a GS—7. He was at all times rated ”fully successful" or I
"highly successful" by the Defendant. Yet, he suffered adverse
employment actions, while his employer, the VA, treated similarly
situated employees outside of protected class more favorably. (See also
Ajayi v. Aramark Business Services, Inc., C.A.7 (Ill.) 336 F.3d 520 (2003).
l
8. Plaintiff was obligated to request a desk audit in order to get promoted.
Others were not. Even when the desk audit required that he be promoted,
he was not. Others similarly situated, e.g. Sandra Maher, a white
secretary, and Deneen Askew, a black secretary, unlike the Plaintiff, did
not have to request a desk audit, and were still promoted.
2 .
l

-u-_ A_ {
R Q “ Case 3:00-cv-OO656—SFiU Document 84 Filed O3/30/2004 Page 3 of 4
9. After that audit began on or about February 25, 1997, Plaintiff' s demotion '
was de facto, as evidenced by significantly diminished material
responsibilities, a less distinguished title, and other matters unique to his
particular situation. Defendant' s actions violated the Civil Rights Act of
1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.
10. Plaintiff s Amended Complaint further pleads in separate counts that he
was unlawfully demoted based on his race and his gender. Again, this
count relates back to the Plaintiffs original complaint and conforms to the
evidence wherein the Plaintiff was demoted from a GS—6 to a GS-4, and
stripped of 700 job points under the Federal Evaluation System (”FES”)
after a second desk audit, which was completed by Defendants Worker’s
Compensation Specialist, Beverly Hogle.
11. Finally, Plaintiff' s Amended Complaint alleges Constructive Discharge
under Title VII, and under the CBA, as these claims conform with the
evidence in this case.
l
12. The Plaintiffs Amended Complaint thus states the issues in this case more
fairly and more clearly, and neither party is prejudiced by any of the
proposed amendments, since they relate to issues, which have been in the
Plaintiffs Complaint from the beginning.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to grant leave to file the
attached Amended Complaint.
i

J
` ` r Case 3:00-cv-00656-SRU Document 84 Filed O3/30/2004 Page 4 of 4
THE 1¤LA1NT11=1=
MARSHALL CHAMBERS {
By. Q./€:*%'vu · ;fM»¤
. Pilgrim {
Law Offices of Caleb M. Pilgrim, LLC `
1404 Whalley Avenue - 2¤d Floor
New Haven, CT 06510 `
TA1; 203-387-2524
Federal Bar No. ct 14857
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the fore ' was mailed, postage prepaid, this
25***. day of March, 2004 to Lauren ash, A SA, US D urch Street, New i
Haven, CT 06510. N
&€3' ck—»·¤··;( ` I
Caleb M. Pilgri
E
T
A l
i