Waithe v. Cardinal Cushing Centers, Inc.

United 	States 	District Court
District 	of Massachusetts
)
Shirlane Waithe, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
V. 	)
)
Cardinal 	Cushing 	Centers, 	Inc., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
--------------------
)
)
Civil 	Action No.
24-12530-NMG
MEMORANDUM 	& ORDER
GORTON, 	J.
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	the 	motion 	of 	plaintiff
Shirlane 	Waithe 	(" plaintiff " 	or 	" Waithe " ) 	for 	reconsideration
and 	lea ve 	to 	file 	an 	amended 	complaint 	(Dock et 	No . 	12) .
Plaintiff ' s 	motion 	follows 	the 	Order 	of 	this 	Court 	(Docket 	No .
10) 	( " the 	Order " ) 	granting 	the 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	of 	defendant
Cardinal 	Cushing 	Centers , 	Inc 	(" Defendant " 	or 	" Cardinal " ) . 	For
the 	follo wing 	reasons , 	plaintiff ' s 	motion 	wil l 	be 	denied .
I . 	Background
Plaintiff 	was 	employed 	by 	defendant 	from 	January , 	2023
through 	April , 	2024 . 	In 	October , 	2024 , 	plaintiff 	brought 	claims
against 	de fenda nt 	for 	1) 	retaliation , 	in 	violation 	of 	Title 	VII
and 	the 	Americans 	with 	Disabilities 	Act 	(" ADA " ) , 	2) 	disability
discrimination , 	in 	violation 	of 	the 	ADA 	and 	M. G. L . 	151B 	§1 , 	et
seq. , 	3) 	interference 	with 	medical 	leave , 	in 	violation 	of 	the
- 1 -
Case 1:24-cv-12530-NMG Document 14 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 5

federal 	Family 	and 	Medical 	Leave 	Act 	(" FMLA " ) 	and 	the
Massachusetts 	Paid 	Family 	Medical 	Leave 	Act 	(" PFMLA " ) 	and 	4)
racial 	discrimination , 	in 	violation 	of 	Title 	VII 	and 	Chapter
151B . 	Waithe 	voluntarily 	dismissed 	her 	claims 	under 	the 	FMLA .
In 	November , 	2024 , 	defendant 	filed 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	the
complaint 	in 	full . 	The 	Court 	allowed 	that 	motion , 	finding 	that
plaintiff 	failed : 	1) 	to 	exhaust 	her 	administrative 	remedies 	with
respect 	to 	her 	disability 	claims , 	2) 	to 	establish 	the 	protected
activity 	against 	which 	defendant 	reta liated , 	3) 	to 	allege
interference 	with 	her 	medical 	leave 	and 	4) 	to 	allege 	any 	adverse
employment 	outcomes . 	Soon 	thereafter , 	plaintiff 	filed 	the
instant 	motion 	for 	reconsideration 	and 	leave 	to 	file 	an 	amended
complaint , 	to 	which 	defendants 	timely 	filed 	an 	opposition .
II. 	Analysis
A. Motion 	to 	Reconsider
Plaintiff moves 	the 	Court 	to 	reconsider 	the 	Order 	pursuant
to 	Fed . R. Civ . P . 59(e) . 	Rule 	59(e) 	allows 	a 	party 	to 	file 	a
motion 	to 	al te r 	or 	amend 	a 	judgment 	within 	28 	days 	of 	its 	entry ,
but 	it 	is 	an 	extraordinary 	remedy 	that 	should 	be 	used 	sparingly .
Palmer 	v . 	Champion 	Mortg ., 	465 	F . 3d 	24 , 	30 	(1st 	Cir . 	2006) .
Courts 	will 	not 	address 	new 	arguments 	or 	evidence 	that 	the
moving 	party 	could 	have 	previously 	raised . 	Banister 	v . 	Davis ,
590 	U. S . 	504 , 	508 	(2020)
- 2 -
Case 1:24-cv-12530-NMG Document 14 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 5

Waithe 	first 	contends 	t hat 	relief 	under 	Rule 	59(e) 	is
appropriate 	because 	the 	Court 	failed 	to 	draw 	all 	reasonable
inferences 	in 	her 	favor . 	She 	asserts 	that 	her 	complaint 	should
have 	been 	interpreted 	as 	alleging 	an 	interference 	with 	her
medical 	leave 	that 	required 	her 	to 	return 	to 	work . 	Not 	so .
Waithe ' s 	complaint 	alleges 	that 	she 	returned 	to 	work 	due 	to
" multiple 	calls 	and 	over 	50 	reports " 	and 	because 	she 	" knew 	that
[d]efendant 	needed 	her ." 	Even 	drawing 	all 	reasonable 	inferences
in 	plaintiff ' s 	f avor , 	those 	facts 	do 	not 	al l eg e 	that 	defendant
forced 	her 	to 	return 	to 	work 	earlier 	than 	p l anned .
Next , 	plaintiff 	posits 	that 	the 	Court 	should 	have
interpreted 	Count 	III 	as 	alleging 	that 	defendant 	retaliated
against 	her 	f or 	taking 	medical 	leave . 	Even 	if 	Count 	III 	could
be 	so 	construed , 	the 	Court 	found 	that 	Waithe 	failed 	to 	plead 	any
adverse 	employment 	outcome . 	Because 	such 	facts 	are 	necessary 	to
susta i n 	a 	retaliation 	claim , 	the 	Court 	dec li nes 	to 	reconsider
that 	i ssue .
Finally , 	Waithe 	claims 	that 	new 	caselaw 	permits 	her 	to 	file
under 	the 	FMLA 	despite 	her 	previous 	ineligibility . 	Because 	her
FMLA 	claims 	are 	otherwise 	identical 	to 	her 	PFM LA claims , 	which
are 	deficient , 	the 	Court 	declines 	to 	grant 	such 	relief . 	The
motion 	to 	reconsider 	will 	be 	denied .
- 3-
Case 1:24-cv-12530-NMG Document 14 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 5

' 	'
B. Motion 	For 	Leave 	to 	File 	an Amended Complaint
Under 	Fed . R. Civ . P . 	15(a) (2) , 	a 	party may 	amend 	a 	complaint
after 	21 	days 	of 	filing 	only 	with 	consent 	of 	the 	opposing 	party
or 	leave 	of 	the 	Court . 	Leave 	should be 	freely 	granted 	unless
the 	amendment 	would 	be 	futile 	or 	result 	in 	undue 	delay . 	Adorno
v . 	Crowley 	Towing 	And 	Transp . 	Co ., 	443 	F . 3d 	122 , 	126 	(1st 	Cir .
2006) .
Plaintiff 	first 	argues 	that 	the 	complaint 	should 	have 	been
dismissed 	without 	prejudice 	because 	defendants 	did 	not
specifically 	request 	otherwise . 	That 	is 	incorrect , 	because , 	as
plaintiff 	herself 	recites , 	a 	dismissal 	pursuant 	to 	Rule 	12(b) (6)
is 	presumed 	to 	be 	with 	prejudice 	absent 	a 	clear 	statement 	to 	the
contrary . 	U. S . 	ex 	rel . 	Karvelas 	v . 	Melrose - Wakefield 	Hosp ., 	360
F . 3d 	220 , 	241 	(1st 	Cir . 	2004) . 	The 	Order 	contains 	no 	such
conditional 	language .
Even 	if 	the 	dismissal 	could 	be 	construed 	as 	being 	without
prejudice , 	plaintiff ' s 	motion 	to 	amend 	would 	nonetheless 	be
unavailing . 	A motion 	for 	leave 	to 	amend 	cannot 	be 	allowed 	after
entry 	of 	judgment 	unless 	that 	judgment 	is 	vacated . 	Palmer , 	465
F . 3d 	at 	30 . 	There 	has 	been 	no 	such 	vacation . 	In 	any 	event ,
plaintiff ' s 	proffered 	amendments 	do 	not 	cure 	the 	deficiencies 	in
the 	complaint 	and 	they 	would 	therefore 	be 	futile .
for 	leave 	to 	amend 	with 	therefore 	be 	denied .
- 4-
The 	motion
Case 1:24-cv-12530-NMG Document 14 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 5

ORDER
For the forgoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration and leave to amend the complaint (Docket No. 12)
is DENIED.
So ordered.
N athanielM.GorYon
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: March2], 2026
-5-
Case 1:24-cv-12530-NMG Document 14 Filed 03/23/26 Page 5 of 5