United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
T. Numbers, II United States Magistrate Judge
the court are a series of motions connected to a Title VII
race discrimination case. Defendant Innovative Talent
Solutions (“ITS”), an employment staffing agency,
first asked the court to strike Plaintiff Nancy
Massenburg's “Proposed Supplemental
Pleadings” because she did not seek leave to amend her
complaint or attach a proposed amended complaint. D.E. 84.
Massenburg then moved for permissive joinder a few days
later, seeking to add ITS's previously unnamed client,
Lee Air Conditioners, Inc., as a defendant. D.E. 86. At the
end of the month, Massenburg asked the court to compel ITS to
produce the date that ITS filled the employment position
Massenburg sought. D.E. 90.
court will deny Massenburg's motion to compel, since the
information she seeks is outside the scope of initial
disclosures. The court will construe Massenburg's motion
for joinder as a motion to amend and grant it, since
Massenburg did not know the identity of Lee Air Conditioners
until recently and since her claims against ITS and Lee Air
Conditioners arise from the same occurrence and have common
questions of law and fact. Lastly, because Massenburg's
“Proposed Supplemental Pleadings” do not comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court's
Local Rules, the undersigned grants ITS's motion to
October 2014, a recruiter for ITS contacted Massenburg, an
African American female, to ask her if she would be
interested in a dispatcher position with an unnamed client.
Compl., D.E. 1-1. The recruiter noted Massenburg's four
and a half years of dispatch experience and said that
Massenburg would be a “a perfect fit” for the
job. Id. The recruiter interviewed Massenburg on the
phone, asked her to fill out an application online, and
requested that she come to the office the next morning to
finish the process. Id. Massenburg agreed. See
online application required Massenburg to disclose that she
had been convicted of a felony. Id. The next
morning, ITS's recruiter Ashley Hunt called Massenburg to
tell her not to come into the office because ITS's client
would not hire anyone with a prior conviction. Id.
ITS later hired a white woman to fill the dispatcher
early January 2015, Massenburg filed charges with the EEOC.
D.E. 1-2. The EEOC issued a Right to Sue Letter in November
December 2016, Massenburg, proceeding pro se, sued
ITS, alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII.
D.E. 1-1. She also listed ITS's “unnamed
client” as a defendant. Id. Massenburg claims
that ITS's background check policy had a disparate impact
on her as an African American candidate. D.E. 1-1 at 2-3.
early November, Massenburg moved for leave to file a second
amended complaint. D.E. 76. The court denied Massenburg's
motion without prejudice, explaining that she needed to file
“a coherent motion to amend” that complied with
the Local Rules. Nov. 19, 2017, Order, D.E. 81.
in mid-December 2017, Massenburg filed Proposed Supplemental
Pleadings, seeking to modify her damage amounts. D.E. 83. In
early January 2018, ITS moved to strike Massenburg's
Proposed Supplemental Pleadings, arguing that Massenburg
failed to follow the Federal Rules' and Local Rules'
mandates about amended complaints. D.E. 84. Within days,
Massenburg moved for joinder, requesting to add ITS's
originally unnamed client, now identified as Lee Air
Conditioners, as a defendant. D.E. 86.
days later, ITS moved for an extension of time to respond to
Massenburg's discovery requests. D.E. 88. The court
granted the motion. Jan. 9, 2018, Order, D.E. 89.
January 2018, Massenburg moved to compel ITS to provide the
date that it filled the dispatcher position she sought. D.E.
90. She also objected to ITS's Motion for an Extension of
Time which the court had granted. Id.
February 2018, Chief United States District Judge James C.
Dever referred three motions to the undersigned magistrate
judge: Massenburg's motion to compel, Massenburg's
motion for joinder, and ITS's motion to strike. D.E. 96.
They are ripe for the court's review.