The focus on the prejudice is the key to prevailing here. I see no reason why the judge will deny her to go out beyond the order unless we show a palpable prejudice to our client and not just because it places the plaintiff in a better position strategically. As I see it, her pleading does not make our position more tenuous. From: John Murray [mailto:jmurray@rddlaw.net] I agree, and she has also failed to adequately show that it would “fair and just” to allow the amendment at such a late stage. I’ve already begun putting pen-to-paper on this. While it is ultimately in the discretion of the judge whether to allow an amendment and they are usually liberal when it comes to amendments, we do have solid prejudice and timing arguments that cannot be ignored and have been ruled in previous cases to be enough to deny a plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend… John E. Murray, Esq. Associate Attorney Rachlis Durham Duff Adler & Peel, LLC 542 South Dearborn Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60605 Office: (312) 733-3950 Direct: (312) 275-0338 Mobile: (810) 824-7197 Fax: (312) 733-3952 Email: jmurray@rddlaw.net Firm website: www.rddlaw.net RACHLIS DURHAM DUFF ADLER & PEEL, LLC E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This transmission may be: (1) subject to the Attorney-Client Privilege, (2) an attorney work product, or (3) strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print, copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this in error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com] It appears that she failed to understand the judge’s order regarding what she can amend which doesn’t surprise me. Voir dire thought: No one would disagree that using the N word justifies firing someone. Shouldn’t every racial, gender, and ethnic epithet receive the same treatment? From: Kevin Duff [mailto:kduff@rddlaw.net] Agreed From: Wolford Lisa [mailto:lisa@csss.net] Btw, I am of German, Irish, Scottish and a smidgen of American Indian descent so neither the Pollack or Dago reference were personal to me. My issue with such statements at a company party is they are derogatory regarding particular ethnicities. This cannot be allowed by an employer. To not take such references seriously would basically endorse them. As a matter of business practice I disciplined a corporate management employee in Omaha for using ethnic slurs at yet another Christmas party. (Is it any wonder that I am not overly enthusiastic about holiday parties??) The management employee was put on a PIP, given sensitivity training and assigned a mentor within the firm. He was a valued senior individual and needed to learn to be more sensitive to others and how he conducts himself in a professional environment. So this treatment of Cynowa was not personal to cynowa ith was merely the right thing to do. The fact that Slater defended Cynowa's statements does not drive company policy regarding ethnic slurs. Mr. Cynowa's technical skills were never in question, his professional demeanor (the lack thereof) was the issue. It is unlikely that Mr. Slater made taunting statements, it is completely counter to his personality style. Btw, in the email from Randy Padal, the Larry mentioned is not Mr. Carver it is the PM prior to Mr. Slater. His name is Larry McKeehan and he was let go for cause. Since it is unverifiable that Slater repeated any statements to anyone it is probably more likely that Mr. Cynowa made statements to to others about his belief that slater believed he had a gun thereby damaging his own reputation. From: Kevin Duff [mailto:kduff@rddlaw.net] Lisa and Bill, Attached is Cynowa’s motion for leave to amend his complaint along with the proposed second amended complaint. Our response to the motion is due May 5. Kevin From: THERESA JOHNSON [mailto:theresavjohnson@prodigy.net]
|