Ortiz v. Inform Diagnostics, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
BIANCA ORTIZ, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Civil Action No.
v. 	) 	24-10967-FDS
)
INFORM DIAGNOSTICS, INC., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
_______________________________________)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALLOW LATE
FILING AND MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
SAYLOR, J.
This is a civil action alleging workplace disability discrimination. Plaintiff Bianca Ortiz
was formerly employed at Inform Diagnostics, Inc. She is proceeding pro se. Before the Court
are plaintiff’s motion to allow late filing and two motions to amend.
I. 	Background
On April 18, 2024, Ortiz filed suit in this Court against her former employer, defendant
Inform Diagnostics, Inc., in addition to various individual supervisors and human-resources
employees. (Dkt. No. 1). The complaint appeared to assert claims for disability discrimination
and retaliation under the ADA and conspiracy to violate the ADA. Inform Diagnostics moved to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and defendant Brianna Bonome filed a motion
joining in Inform’s motion to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 24, 30). Ortiz then filed a motion for leave to
file an amended complaint, but did not submit a proposed amended complaint to that motion.
(Dkt. No. 32).
On July 1, 2025, the Court issued an order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss with
Case 1:24-cv-10967-FDS Document 50 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 5

2
prejudice as to the claims against the individual defendants and the claim for conspiracy to
violate the ADA, and without prejudice as to the claims against Inform Diagnostics for disability
discrimination and retaliation. (Dkt. No. 41). In light of her pro se status, the Court concluded
that it would allow Ortiz an opportunity to set forth the facts supporting her claims of
discrimination and retaliation in a more complete and organized manner, properly tailored to the
elements of her surviving claims, and thus permitted her to file a renewed motion for leave to file
an amended complaint. (Id. at 3-4).
The Court ordered that any such motion must be filed by July 22, 2025. (Id. at 4). Ortiz
did not adhere to that deadline. Instead, on August 5, 2025, she filed a combined motion to
allow late filing and for leave to file a first amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 42). As grounds for
the late filing, she stated that she did not timely receive a copy of the Court’s order setting the
deadline, and that her mother had passed away on July 15. Her motion attached a proposed
amended complaint that asserts claims for (1) disability discrimination under the ADA; (2)
retaliation under the ADA; (3) violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
149, § 148; and (4) conspiracy. Inform Diagnostics, the remaining defendant, opposed both
motions. (Dkt. No. 47).
On December 30, 2025, while her motion for leave to file an amended complaint
remained pending before the Court, Ortiz filed another proposed amended complaint. (Dkt. No.
48). That second proposed amended complaint asserts claims for disability discrimination and
retaliation in violation of the ADA, but not violation of the Wage Act or conspiracy. (Dkt. No.
48-1).
The second proposed amended complaint alleges that Ortiz was employed by Inform
Diagnostics as a specimen-processing analyst. (Id.). It alleges that she has multiple disabilities,
Case 1:24-cv-10967-FDS Document 50 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 5

3
including anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression. (Id.). It further alleges that in
light of those impairments, she requested accommodations from Inform Diagnostics, such as a
flexible work schedule and reassignment to a different department, and that Inform denied that
request. (Id.). The amended complaint alleges that on the last day of her employment, Inform
locked her out of the building, changed her job duties to physically demanding tasks, required
her to sit on the floor despite medical limitations, and terminated her publicly. (Id.). For present
purposes, the Court must assume that those allegations are true.
II. 	Standard of Review
Under Rule 15(a), a party may amend a pleading without leave of court in certain
relatively narrow circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “In all other cases, a party may amend
its pleadings only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court
should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Nonetheless,
amendments may be denied on the basis of “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 by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of
amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “‘Futility’ means that the complaint,
as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Glassman v.
Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996). “In reviewing for futility, the district
court applies the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Id.
Furthermore, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the complaint, “however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976))
(citation modified); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”); see
also Instituto De Educacion Universal Corp. v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 209 F.3d 18, 23
Case 1:24-cv-10967-FDS Document 50 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 5

4
(1st Cir. 2000). However, while pro se complaints “are accorded ‘an extra degree of
solicitude’ . . . even a pro se plaintiff is required to ‘set forth factual allegations, either direct or
inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable
legal theory.’” Wright v. Town of Southbridge, 2009 WL 415506, at *2 (D. Mass. Jan. 15, 2009)
(quoting Adams v. Stephenson, 1997 WL 351633, at *1 (1st Cir. June 23, 1997) (per curiam)).
III. 	Analysis
Under the circumstances, and in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, albeit with some
reluctance, the Court will excuse the late filing and will not deny the motion for leave to amend
on that basis.
The question then becomes whether plaintiff should be given leave to amend the
complaint. The first proposed amended complaint asserted—in addition to the disability
discrimination and retaliation claims—violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act and conspiracy.
The Court has already dismissed the claim for conspiracy with prejudice, and therefore will not
permit the amendment to assert such a claim. As for the claim under the Massachusetts Wage
Act, there are substantial issues of undue delay (it is unclear why plaintiff did not assert this
claim in the first instance, as she clearly would have been aware immediately if she had not been
paid wages that she was owed) and futility (the claim may be barred by the statute of
limitations). In any event, because plaintiff’s second submission of an amended complaint did
not assert either the conspiracy or Wage Act claims, it appears that plaintiff has elected to forgo
the assertion of such claims, and therefore the Court need not reach the issue.
Construed with the solicitude appropriate for a pro se plaintiff, the second proposed
amended complaint is not futile, as it states a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
complaint identifies plaintiff’s disabilities and the specific accommodations she requested. It
alleges that defendant denied her request then took certain adverse actions against her. Again, at
Case 1:24-cv-10967-FDS Document 50 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 5

5
this stage, the Court must take all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. See Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). While the complaint certainly suffers from a lack
of dates and other details, it has sufficiently identified certain events to give the defendant “fair
notice of the nature of the claim asserted and the factual grounds upon which it rests.” Griffin v.
FBIRA Bos., Inc., 2024 WL 2330744, at *3 (D. Mass. May 22, 2024) (citing Silverstrand Invs. v.
AMAG Pharm., Inc., 707 F.3d 95, 101 (1st Cir. 2013)).
The Court will treat the second proposed amended complaint, which alleges more
detailed versions of the discrimination and retaliation claims raised in the original complaint, as
the operative pleading in this action. The Court will grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend
to that effect—that is, to permit the second amended version to serve as the operative complaint.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for late filing (Dkt. No.
42); DENIES the August 2025 motion to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 42); and
GRANTS the December 2025 motion to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 48). The clerk is
directed to enter the December 30, 2025 complaint on the docket. Defendant Inform
Diagnostics, Inc., shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within 21 days (that is, by
February 11, 2026).
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: January 21, 2026 	United States District Court Judge
Case 1:24-cv-10967-FDS Document 50 Filed 01/21/26 Page 5 of 5