Al-Sabur v. Columbus Board of Education et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ARSHAD AL-SABUR,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS, et
al.,
Defendants.
:
:
Case No. 2:25-cv-252
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A.
Jolson
OPINION AND ORDER
Arshad Al-Sabur filed this suit alleging that the Columbus City Schools and
Penny Roth discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of State and
Federal law. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings (Mot., ECF No. 10). Mr. Al-Sabur responded (Resp., ECF No. 11),
and Defendants replied (Reply, ECF No. 12). In the alternative to his response, Mr.
Al-Sabur filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Mot. to File Am.
Compl., ECF No. 11), and Defendants responded (Resp. to Mot. to File Am. Compl.,
ECF No. 13).
For the reasons below, Mr. Al-Sabur’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint is GRANTED. Mr. Al-Sabur is ORDERED to file an amended
complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. The amended
complaint shall not include any new causes of action or additional parties. The
parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and to file a proposed amended case
Case: 2:25-cv-00252-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/17/25 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
schedule within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. Defendants’
Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED as moot.
I. BACKGROUND1
Mr. Al-Sabur was hired as a teacher by Columbus City Schools (“CCS”) in
August 2021. (Compl., ¶ 17.) At the time he was hired, Mr. Al-Sabur suffered from
several preexisting disabilities, such as bone degeneration, bone deformities, and
bipolar disorder. (Id., ¶ 21.) Mr. Al-Sabur’s disabilities compounded in November
2022 when he suffered torn rotator cuffs as the result of a workplace injury. (Id.,
¶ 55.) To make matters worse, when he visited a doctor to have his rotator cuffs
examined, he was diagnosed with diabetes. (Id., ¶ 61.)
To help treat his new (and preexisting) disabilities, Mr. Al-Sabur went on
continuous FMLA leave. (Id., ¶ 75.) He later requested several accommodations to
return to work to no avail and remained at home for months without pay. (Id., ¶¶
76, 105, 134.) According to Mr. Al-Sabur, he could no longer reasonably remain
employed under the circumstances and was, therefore, constructively discharged in
March 2023. (Id., ¶ 136.) He filed a charge of discrimination against CCS with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, received a notice of his right to sue,
and initiated this action. (Id., ¶¶ 10, 12.)
1 At this stage in the litigation, all well-pleaded factual allegations in the
Complaint are taken as true. See Bullington v. Bedford Cty., 905 F.3d 467, 469 (6th
Cir. 2018). The following summary draws from the allegations in the Complaint and
any documents integral to it.
Case: 2:25-cv-00252-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/17/25 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Procedurally speaking, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring motions
to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties be filed by June 30, 2025. (ECF
No. 9.) Just two days later, Defendants filed their Motion for Partial Judgment on
the Pleadings. (Mot.) In response, Mr. Al-Sabur included a Motion to File an
Amended Complaint. (Mot. to File Am. Compl.) Both motions are now ripe for this
Court’s consideration. Because the Court finds Mr. Al-Sabur’s Motion for Leave to
File an Amended Complaint to be well-taken, the Court need not and does not
address Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
There are two rules applicable to Mr. Al-Sabur’s Motion. First, Rule 15(a)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when a party seeks leave of
court to file an amended pleading, “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice
so requires.” This rule allows for a liberal policy in favor of granting amendments
and “reinforce[s] the principle that cases ‘should be tried on their merits rather than
the technicalities of pleadings.’” Inge v. Rock Finan. Corp., 388 F.3d 930, 936 (6th
Cir. 2004) (quoting Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986)).
Ultimately “[t]he decision whether or not to permit the amendment is committed to
the discretion of the trial court.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119,
1130 (6th Cir. 1990). In exercising its discretion, the trial court may consider such
factors as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of a movant,
repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and]
futility of the amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Case: 2:25-cv-00252-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/17/25 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
But because Mr. Al-Sabur moved to amend after the Court’s June 30, 2025
amendment deadline, he “must meet the higher threshold for modifying a
scheduling order found in Rule 16(b).” Shane v. Bunzl Distrib. USA, Inc., 275 F.
App’x 535, 536 (6th Cir. 2008). This means that he must “show good cause under
Rule 16(b) for the failure to seek leave to amend prior to the expiration of the
deadline before [the Court] will consider whether the amendment is proper under
Rule 15(a).” Hill v. Banks, 85 F. App’x 432, 433 (6th Cir. 2003). “This Court has
noted that ‘the touchstone of the good cause inquiry under Rule 16(b) is whether the
moving party acted diligently in attempting to meet the deadline set forth in the
pretrial order.’” Huntington Natl. Bank v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-256,
2021 WL 12303456, *2 (S.D. Ohio May 27, 2021) (Jolson, M.J.) (citations omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Rule 15(a)
Mr. Al-Sabur has satisfied the first standard here. “Rule 15(a) declares that
leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires’; this mandate is to be
heeded.” Davis, 371 U.S. at 182. Thus, where “the underlying facts or circumstances
relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded
an opportunity to test his claims on the merits.” Id. It would be “contrary to the
spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for decisions on the merits to be
avoided on the basis of … mere technicalities.” Id. at 181. The Court agrees.
For example, Defendants aptly point out that Mr. Al-Sabur did not mention
(or attach) his original EEOC charge in the Complaint. (Reply, PAGEID# 96.)
Rather, the only suggestion that an original might exist is that the referenced
Case: 2:25-cv-00252-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/17/25 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
charge is “amended.” (Resp., PAGEID# 87.) But penalizing Mr. Al-Sabur for such a
technical oversight would ignore the merits and elevate form over substance.
B. Rule 16(b)
The Court recognizes that Mr. Al-Sabur failed to address Rule 16(b) in his
Motion but nevertheless finds that good cause exists here.2
“In evaluating good cause under Rule 16(b), Plaintiff’s diligence is key.”
Ousley v. CG Consulting, LLC, 339 F.R.D. 455, 459 (S.D. Ohio 2021) (Jolson, M.J.).
The alleged deficiencies in Mr. Al-Sabur’s pleading were identified two days after
the pleadings closed and he requested leave to amend in his first response
thereafter. (See Mot. to File Am. Compl.) The Court does not find a lack of diligence
or undue delay here.
The Court further finds that Defendants do not stand to be prejudiced by
amendment. Any attempt by Mr. Al-Sabur to remedy his failure to reference the
original EEOC charge or alleged lack of specificity regarding his diabetes diagnosis
will not result in new causes of action, additional parties, or novel theories of
liability not already contemplated in the original Complaint. Thus, Defendants are
unlikely “to incur significant additional costs in discovery or to develop a new
litigation strategy.” AIG Specialty Ins. Co., 2021 WL 12303456 at *3. While the
absence of prejudice does not equal good cause, the Court finds that the benefit of
deciding this case on the merits far outweighs any potential prejudice to
2 The Court takes this opportunity to note that Mr. Al-Sabur’s counsel has
also ignored this Court’s standing orders. Pursuant to Standing Order I(C)(3), all
“[c]itations to authority, the record, and the docket must be in-line with the cited
text, not in footnotes.”
Case: 2:25-cv-00252-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/17/25 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
Defendants. Thus, “pursuant to its ‘broad discretion in deciding motions for leave to
amend,’” the Court finds good cause exists here. Id.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Mr. Al-Sabur’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint is GRANTED. Mr. Al-Sabur is ORDERED to file an amended
complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. The amended
complaint shall not include any new causes of action or additional parties. The
parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and to file a proposed amended case
schedule within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. Defendants’
Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 2:25-cv-00252-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/17/25 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>