United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
LISA C. PETERSON, Plaintiff,
SCIS AIR SECURITY CORP., and LSG SKY CHEFS, INC. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
SAM, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Lisa C. Peterson moves the court pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) for leave to amend her Complaint to
add a claim for Constructive Discharge against her former
employer SCIS Air Security Corp. (“SCIS”). Ms.
Peterson also seeks leave to amend her Third Claim against
LSG Sky Chefs, Inc. (“Sky Chefs”) for Negligent
Ms. Peterson's claims are allegations that she was
subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation in violation
of Title VII during her employment with SCIS, including
harassment by employees of Sky Chefs. Plaintiff was employed
by SCIS as a Security Ramp Coordinator. SCIS provides
security services for Sky Chefs, who in turn provides
in-flight meals for various airlines at Salt Lake
March 9, 2017, the Court granted Sky Chefs' motion to
dismiss the claims against it. All claims against Sky Chefs,
except the third, were dismissed with prejudice. The third
claim for negligent employment was dismissed without
Chefs note, the Proposed Amended Complaint
(“PAC”) appears to be “nearly identical to
[Plaintiff's] initial Complaint with respect to Sky Chefs
.... with the exception of the identification of a Sky Chefs
manager in paragraph 37 and the insertion of new paragraphs
38 and 39" and the addition of “a Seventh Cause of
Action for constructive discharge against Defendant
SCIS.” Sky Chefs' Mem. Opp'n at 3.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that leave to
amend should be given “when justice so requires,
” denial of leave may be appropriate for
“‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on
the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party, futility of the amendment, etc.'”
Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204
(10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
SCIS and Sky Chefs urge that leave to file the proposed
amended complaint should be denied as futile.
Peterson seeks to add a claim against SCIS for constructive
discharge. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a
jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under Title VII.
Alcivar v. Wynne, 268 F.Appx. 749, 753
(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 877
(2008). Documentary evidence now before the Court suggests
that Ms. Peterson has administratively exhausted her
remedies. Therefore, her Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
with respect to SCIS will not be denied for reasons of
Chefs assert that because the proposed Third Claim for Relief
for Negligent Employment would still be subject to dismissal,
granting leave to amend would be futile. “[C]ourts
analyze the proposed amendment under the standard for a
motion to dismiss.” Shahmaleki v. Kansas State
University, 147 F.Supp.3d 1239, 1243 (D. Kan. 2015);
Anderson v. Suiters, 499 ...