Dawn v. The Press Enterprise, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KEITH DAWN,
Plaintiff
v.
THE PRESS ENTERPRISE INC.;
PAUL EYERL Y; and BRANDON
EVERLY,
Defendants
No. 4:23cv499
(Judge Munley)
............................................................................................................• • • • • • ■ •••••••••••••••••• • •• ■ • ■ ■ ■ •••• ■ ••••••••• ■ •••• ■ ••••••••••••••••• ■ •• ■ • ■ ■ •• ■ ••• • •••••••••••• ■ • ■ ••••• ■ •••
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Keith Dawn proceeds in this action against Defendants The Press
Enterprise, Inc ., Paul Eyerly, and Brandon Eyerly pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, as amended , 42 U.S.C. § 12101 , et seq. ("ADA"), Pennsylvania
Human Relations Act, 43 PA. STAT. § 951 , et seq. ("PHRA" ), and state law.
Dawn's first amended complaint asserts claims for ADA and PHRA disability
discrimination , defamation, and invasion of privacy. (Doc. 48, Am . Compl.).
By way of brief background , Dawn was an employee of Defendant Press
Enterprise from October 25 , 2017, through March 25 , 2022. See Dawn v. Press
Enter., Inc. , No . 4:23CV499, 2024 WL 3569205, at *1 (M . D. Pa. July 29, 2024).
Dawn's wife is an individual with an addiction related disability. kl 	After several
unsuccessful requests to work from home to better assist his wife, defendants
allegedly told plaintiff that his requests were considered to be a resignation , and
Case 4:23-cv-00499-JKM Document 58 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 9

ultimately, his employment was terminated . !fl 	Dawn sued defendants in March
2023. 	In his initial complaint, Dawn indicated in a footnote that he intended to
amend the complaint to add counts under the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Act, 43 PA. STAT. §§ 951 , et seq. ("PHRA") when the administrative exhaustion
requirements were satisfied . (Doc. 1, ,I 2).
Later, Dawn sought leave to amend his in itial complaint. (Doc. 30). 	The
court granted his motion to add disability discrimination claims under the PHRA.
(Doc. 47). With respect to the proposed ADA and PHRA retaliation claims,
however, the court denied Dawn 's request without prejud ice. (!fl) 	The court
explained that, should Dawn wish to pursue such claims , he must file a renewed
motion to amend in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Rules of Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania ("Local Rules"). (!fl)
Now Dawn seeks leave to amend to assert two additional claims against
defendants, one for unlawful retaliation under the ADA and another for unlawful
retaliation under the PHRA. (Doc. 49). Dawn's motion is accompanied by a copy
of the proposed second amended complaint in Exhibit A and a version of the
proposed amendments with changes highlighted in Exhibit B as required by the
Local Rules. See M.D. PA. L.R. 15.1.
Defendants do not oppose Dawn's motion insofar as it seeks to add a
retaliation claim under the PHRA. (Doc. 51 , Br. in Opp. at 2 n. 1). Defendants,
2
Case 4:23-cv-00499-JKM Document 58 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 9

however, oppose the proposed addition of an ADA retaliation claim . (kl at 5-6).
Defendants advance two arguments in support of their positions. First, they
assert that Dawn failed to demonstrate good cause to file a second amended
complaint as required by Rule 16. (l.Q. at 7-8). 	Second , they contend that the
proposed amendment would be futile because more than ninety days have
passed since the EEOC issued plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue, rende ring the
ADA retaliation claim time-barred. (kl at 9-10).
Amendment of Pleadings Standard - Amendment of pleadings is
governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civi l Procedure. 	Leave to amend
should be freely given absent any "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, [or] futility of amendment[.]" Farnan v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962). Moreover, "[l]eave to amend must generally be granted unless
equitable considerations render it otherwise unjust. " Arthur v. Maersk, Inc ., 434
F.3d 196, 204 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Farnan, 371 U.S. at 182; Lorenz v. CSX
Corp., 1 F.3d 1406, 1414 (3d Cir. 1993)). 	Prejudice to the non-moving party is
the touchstone for denying an amendment.19..: (citing Lorenz, 1 F.3d at 1414)
(further citation omitted).
3
Case 4:23-cv-00499-JKM Document 58 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 9

Good Cause under Rule 	16 - 	Turning to defendants' first argument, that
Dawn cannot satisfy Rule 	16 's good-cause standard , defendants acknowledge
that 	plaintiff 	raised 	an 	ADA 	retaliation 	claim 	in 	his 	charge 	of 	discrimination
("Charge") before the 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity 	Commission 	(" EEOC" ).
(Doc. 51 , Br. in Opp. at 8). 	Nonetheless, defendants assert that plaintiff has moved
to amend his complaint for the second time after t he deadline set forth in the court's
scheduling order. (kt at 7) . 	According to defendants, 	by 	requesting leave to
amend , plaintiff is effectively seeking to modify the court's case management
order. (~ at 7- 8). 	Defendants further argue that plaintiff failed to address whether
he has demonstrated good cause to amend , as required by Rule 16 . (~)
When seeking to modify a case management order, Federal Rule of Civil
procedure 16(b )(4) requires the moving party to establish "good cause" for the
amendment. Premier Comp Sols. , LLC v. UPMC, 970 F.3d 316, 318 (3d Cir.
2020). "The touchstone for assessing whether there was good cause to amend a
complaint is whether the moving party showed due diligence in bringing their
claims. " Rogers v. Wilmington Tr. Co. , No. 21-1473, 2022 WL 621690, at *6 (3d
Cir. Mar. 3, 2022) (citing Race Tires Am ., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp ., 614
F.3d 57 , 84 (3d Cir. 2010)). 	Thus , a "party must meet [Rule 16] standard before
a district court considers whether the party also meets Rule 15(a)'s more liberal
standard ." Premier Comp Sols., LLC ., 970 F.3d at 319.
4
Case 4:23-cv-00499-JKM Document 58 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 9

Here, the case management order set October 7, 2024 as the deadline for
amending the pleadings. (Doc. 29). 	Dawn first moved to amend on October 4,
2024, three days before the deadline. (Doc. 30). The court denied that motion in
part "without prejudice to the plaintiff filing a motion to amend addressing both
the ADA and PHRA retaliation claims ." (Doc. 47). Plaintiff followed the court's
directive and filed a second motion for leave to amend. Under these
circumstances, plaintiff had good cause to further amend his complaint.
Moreover, the proposed amendment is permitted under the relation-back
doctrine. Pursuant to Rule 15(c), "[a]n amendment to a pleading relates back to
the date of the original pleading when .. . the amendment asserts a claim or
defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out - or
attempted to be set out - 	in the original pleading. " FED . R. CIv. P. 15(c)(1 )(B).
Thus, when an amended complaint "relates back" to the original complaint, the
operative date for statute of limitations purposes is the date the original complaint
was filed . Glover v. F.D.I.C. , 698 F. 3d 139, 145 (3d Cir. 2012) ("Where an
amendment relates back, Rule 15(c) allows a plaintiff to sidestep an otherwise-
applicable statute of limitations, thereby permitting resolution of a claim on the
merits, as opposed to a technicality.").
Here, Dawn 's renewed motion for leave to amend relates back to his first
motion and is itself timely. 	The court expressly permitted the filing of a renewed
5
Case 4:23-cv-00499-JKM Document 58 Filed 03/04/26 Page 5 of 9

motion. 	Furthermore, the proposed ADA retaliation claim arises out of the
conduct described in the original complaint. 	More precisely, the substance of
that claim was already embedded in the original pleading, albeit not set forth
under a separate heading, as discussed more fully below.
Contrary to defendants' assertions, plaintiff did not lack diligence in
pursuing his ADA retaliation claim. 	The inclusion of an ADA retaliation claim in
the EEOC Charge demonstrates that plaintiff possessed the underlying facts at
the outset of the litigation. However, the absence of a separate heading in the
original complaint entitled "Retaliation Claim under the ADA" is not fatal so long
as the factual allegations fairly placed the defendants on notice of the claim.
Rejecting the proposed amendment would place form over substance.
"The Federal Rules do not require technical forms of pleading. " LeGare v. Univ.
of Pennsylvania Med. Sch ., 488 F. Supp. 1250, 1256 (E.D. Pa. 1980) (citing FED .
R. CIv. P. 8(e)). Rule 10(b) refines this general principle by requiring a party to
state "its claims ... in numbered paragraphs , each limited as far as practicable to
a single set of circumstances ... If doing so would promote clarity, each claim
founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . .. must be stated in a
separate count [.]" FED. R. CIv. P. 10(b ). Notably, "Rule 10(b) is addressed to
separate factual claims rather than to separate legal grounds for relief[.]"
LeGare, 488 F. Supp. at 1256; see Ciocca v. Heidrick & Struggles, Inc., No . CV
6
Case 4:23-cv-00499-JKM Document 58 Filed 03/04/26 Page 6 of 9

17-5222, 2018 WL 2298498, at *4 (E.D . Pa . May 21 , 2018) ("While alleging each
theory in a separate count might have added a measure of clarity to the
Complaint-and avoided excess motion practice-it is not required by Rule 10(b)
under the circumstances of this case ." ).
Dawn's original complaint provided :
2. Defendants wrongfully discriminated against, wrongfully
terminated , and unlawfully deprived Mr. Dawn of his rights
under, inter alia , the Americans with Disabilities Act [.]
52.The 	Americans 	With 	Disabil ities 	Act 	prohibits
discrimination 	against 	employees 	on 	the 	basis 	of their
relationship with individuals with disabilities.
53 . Press Enterprise terminated Mr. Dawn's employment
because 	of 	his 	relationship 	with 	an 	individual 	with 	a
disability, Mr. Dawn's wife.
54 . On May 4, 2022 , Mr. Dawn's attorney sent a letter to
Press Enterprise and the Eyerly's informing them of Mr.
Dawn 's intention to pursue discrimination claims related to
his termination.
55. After receiving that letter, and in retaliation for that
legally protected act, Defendants opposed 	Mr. 	Dawn's
application for Unemployment Compensation benefits.
56 . Defendants falsely told the Pennsylvania
Unemployment Compensation Bureau that Mr. Dawn
"resigned. "
(Doc 1, ,m 2, 52-56).
The allegations in the original complaint were sufficient to place defendants
on notice of Dawn 's ADA retaliation claim . The complaint expressly alleged that
7
Case 4:23-cv-00499-JKM Document 58 Filed 03/04/26 Page 7 of 9

defendants falsely informed the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation
Bureau that Dawn had resigned in retaliation for his counsel 's letter advising
defendants of Dawn 's intent to pursue legal action . Additionally, defendants
oppose only the proposed ADA retaliation claim while declining to chal lenge the
PHRA retaliation claim , a distinction the court finds incongruent given that both
claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts .
Considering the initial complaint as a whole, including the allegations
referenced above, plaintiff's intent to assert retaliation claims under both ADA
and PHRA is quite apparent. 	Accordingly, defendants' Rule 16 arguments are
not persuasive.
Futility - 	Defendants further contend that plaintiff's proposed amendment to
add an ADA retaliation claim is futile because the claim is time-barred. (Doc. 51 ,
Br. in Opp. at 9- 10). 	Specifically, defendants argue that more than two and a half
years have elapsed since Dawn received his Notice of Right to Sue from the
EEOC. (kl) 	Since the court has already concluded that Dawn's second motion
for leave to amend relates back to his timely filed initial motion , defendants'
futility argument is unpersuasive.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1) Dawn's second motion to amend, (Doc. 49), is GRANTED ;
8
Case 4:23-cv-00499-JKM Document 58 Filed 03/04/26 Page 8 of 9

2) The Clerk of Court is directed to docket the proposed Second Amended
Complaint, (Doc. 49-1 ), as the operative complaint in this matter; and
3) As previously ordered on September 23 , 2025, (Doc. 57), dispositive
motions are due sixty (60) days from the date of this order, i.e. , by May
4, 2026.
BYTHE 	OURT:
9
Case 4:23-cv-00499-JKM Document 58 Filed 03/04/26 Page 9 of 9