Kristi Wachter <humanrights@racerrecords.com>
According to the Scientology website for the Connecticut branch of the
Scientology Church, located at 909 Whalley Avenue, in New Haven,
Connecticut 06515, Mr. Wheatley is listed as a member of the organization.
(Exhibit E: Connecticut Scientology Website list of members) Interestingly
enough, Mr. Little's common law wife Juliana Crane is also listed as a
Scientology Church member. (Exhibit E: Connecticut Scientology Website
list of members) Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Crane is an "auditor"
for the Scientology Church here in Connecticut, and until recently had a
website devoted to Scientology activities.
The deponent Mr. Thomas Crawford, the former Executive Director, and a
non-Scientologist, testified as follows:
Q: Are you aware of any employees of the Housing Authority,
during the time you were the executive director, who were part of
the Church of Scientology?
A: I'm aware that Ben Little is a member of the Church of
Scientology.
Q: Are you a member of that same church?
A: No.
Q: What is your religion?
A: Catholic.
Q: Were there any other employees that you were aware of that were
Scientologists at the Housing Authority?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: Describe for me Mr. Little's efforts to have Mr. Wheatley
do presentations for the Housing Authority employees.
A: Ben introduced me to John Wheatley, I believe that's his name,
to try and deal with communication issue relating to the staff. And I think
to try and develop communication skills between the staff and individually
to bring up their skill levels in correspondence and just general techniques.
And he felt that Mr. Wheatley had a program that could be utilized to help
do that.
Q: Did he explain to you, when he suggested Mr. Wheatley's
program, that it was based upon Scientology?
A: I found that out. I wasn't really aware that that was the
connection initially. . .
A: . . .And with the Scientology issue being brought to my attention
and the fact that it was technically a religious thing, then I felt I had
no choice but to terminate the program until we could sit back and really
evaluate it, take another look.
Q: Did you ever take another look?
A: No.
Q: Okay. Why did the religion issue pose a problem for you?
A: Well, it's a federal--it's a Housing Authority and, basically,
from the federal standpoint and all of that, we're not supposed to be pushing
any type of--you know, anything that would be perceived to be a religious
type of a vein. The fact that somebody now had raised that issue, I guess
I was forced to deal with it, address it, so I did.
(Exhibit C: Deposition Transcript of Thomas Crawford, pp.173-177 June 27,
2002)
Had Plaintiff brought the claim soon after July 18, 2001 solely based on
Defendant Little's testimony, the Defendants would have most likely moved
to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
In order to avoid the significant costs to each party, particularly the
Defendants, Plaintiff was under the obligation, pursuant to Rule 11 and
the Advisory Committee's Notes, to delay bringing a claim of religious
discrimination until after limited discovery had provided the "sufficient"
evidentiary support for such a claim. (See Exhibits B, C, and D).
In the instant case, Plaintiff could not yet confirm the existence of
operative facts to assert a religious discrimination claim. She served
additional discovery in the form of a request for admission, which was
later denied based upon numerosity. Plaintiff only confirmed the existence
of the facts supportive of religious discrimination through two non-party
depositions of deponents Kemp and Crawford. As previously stated, each
confirmed that Mr. Little required management training by all employees
including the Plaintiff.
"This is not a case where the amendment came on the even of trial and
would result in new problems of proof. (citation omitted). At the time
plaintiffs requested leave to amend, no trial date had been set by the
court and no motion for summary judgment had yet been filed by the
defendants. Also, it appears that the amendment will not involve a great
deal of additional discovery." State Teachers Retirement Board v. Fluor
Corp., 654 F.2d 843, 856 (2d Cir.1981). In the instant case, Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint did not come at the eve of trial because no trial date
had been set. Nor did the Defendant file a motion for summary judgment.
In fact, the Defendants still have not provided an answer to the complaint.
(due to dilatory tactics to strike the complaint four times) Also, the
amended complaint "will not involve a great deal of additional discovery."
At best, Plaintiff anticipates a very limited set of new of requests for
production and the completion of previously noticed depositions. As of
the date of the instant motion, the Defendants have not served any such
new discovery nor have they requested scheduling of the previously noticed
deposition. The parties recently agreed not to take the depositions of
Mr. Little and Ms. McClanahan or another other witness, due to those
witnesses alleged scheduling problems.5 Plaintiff has yet to be deposed
in this case, due to the Defendants repeated failure to provide
documentation responsive to her discovery requests and because the
Defendants have not filed an answer in this case, now two years old.
D. Plaintiff's Religious Discrimination Claim Relates Back
Based on the arguments present herein, supra, Plaintiff asserts that her
claim of religious discrimination based on Defendant Little's illegal Scientology
management practices does in fact relate back to her original complaint
and the core set of operative facts from which this case arose. Plaintiff
further asserts that the United States Supreme acknowledges that the
federal rules of civil procedure must be construed as to do substantial
justice:
As amended, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 'These rules
... shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action.' Rule 8(f) says: 'All pleadings shall be so
construed as to do substantial justice.' And Justice Black reminded us,
more than 30 years ago, in connection with an order adopting revised Rules
of this Court, that the 'principal function of procedural rules should be
to serve as useful guides to help, not hinder, persons who have a legal
right to bring their problems before the courts.' Order adopting revised
rules of S.Ct. of U.S. Mon. April 12, 1954. This Court, too, in the early
days of the federal civil procedure rules, when Rule 15(c), see n. 5,
supra, consisted only of what is now its first sentence, announced that
the spirit and inclination of the rules favored decisions on the merits,
and rejected an approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one
misstep may be decisive. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48, 78 S.Ct. 99,
103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). It also said that decisions on the merits are
not to be avoided on the basis of 'mere technicalities.' Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 181, 83 S.Ct. 227, 229, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).
Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 27, 106 S.Ct. 2379, 2383, 91 L.Ed.2d 18
(1986). Based on the arguments asserted herein, denying Plaintiff her
motion to include a religious discrimination claim based on Scientology
would severely impair "substantial justice" in this case. More important,
Plaintiff should not be denied a decision on the merits because of "mere
technicalities" in the filing of her Sixth Amended Complaint. As
discussed supra, Plaintiff did not have the evidentiary basis to bring
such an action until discovery revealed such evidence, pursuant to Rule
11.
The Second Circuit recently clarified the requirements and purpose of Rule
15(c):
Rule 15(c ) provides that 'an amendment of a pleading relates back to the
date of the original pleading when the claim or defense asserted in the
amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set
forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.' Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(c)(2). Provided the amended pleading is based on the same series of
transactions and occurrences alleged in the original pleading, the revised
pleading will relate back to the original pleading, even where the revised
pleading contains legal theories not included in the original.
White v. White Rose Food, 128 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir.1997).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendment of pleadings. It
states, "in pertinent part, that leave to amend the complaint should be
'freely given when justice so requires.' Indeed, leave to amend should be
denied only in the face of undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice to the
nonmovant, futility of amendment or where the movant has repeatedly failed
to cure deficiencies in previous amendments. Furthermore, district courts
are vested with broad discretion to grant a party leave to amend the
pleadings. The party opposing a motion for leave has the burden of
establishing that granting such leave would be unduly prejudicial."
Breyette v. Amendore, 205 F.R.D. 416, 418 (E.D.N.Y 2002)(Internal
citations omitted.)
The proposed amendment seeking to add a count for religious
discrimination is proper because it 'relates back' to the original
complaint. "To satisfy the requirements of the relation-back rule, an
amendment need only spring from the same core event or transaction as that
set out in the original complaint. Thus amendment under Rule 15(c) is
freely granted to cure a defective statement or to replace an inadequate
legal theory." Drakatos v. R.B. Denison, Inc., 493 F. Supp. 942, 945
(D.Conn)(1980).
Reviewing the Sixth Amended Complaint, it is clear that the
proposed amendment relates back to the original. The 'core event' in the
original Complaint is the discrimination that plaintiff endured while
employed by the defendant Greenwich Housing Authority, as committed by the
Defendant Little. It identifies certain acts, performed by certain
individuals, in a certain time frame.
The proposed amendment also arises from this 'core event'. Indeed, the
proposed amendment covers the exact same acts, performed by the exact same
individuals, in the exact same time frame. The only new allegation is
that the Defendant Little's conduct was motivated by religious
discrimination based on Scientology. This change - a change only in the
theory of recovery - is precisely the type of change permitted by Rule
15(c). Id. (Rule 15(c) amendment is "freely granted to...replace an
inadequate legal theory").
Plaintiff respectfully asserts that her claim of religious discrimination
relates back to the same core set of operative facts and should be allowed
to test the merits of her claim. To deny her such relief would be a
substantial injustice.
--
If I am not who you say I am, then you are not who you think you are.
- James Baldwin
I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I
want them to stop it. See http://www.scientology-lies.com for more.
KSW:
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/alteringtech.htm
Greenwich Housing Authority discrimination 4 of 5
18 Sep 2002
Kristi Wachter the activist formerly known as "Jour"
(before $cientology outed me)
[Note: The
Scientology®
organization has at best estimate approximately
45,000 to 50,000 followers world wide -- contrary to the 8 million figure
that the organization has been claiming for the past few years or so.
While that number continues to drop (thanks in part to the Internet) few
of the remaining followers are even aware of the unending series of police
raids, indictments, and prison terms their leaders and fellow cultists are
subjected to routinely. Few are allowed to know about their organization's
criminal history, or its current racketeering activities. Even fewer of
the cult's remaining followers are privy to their messiah's written
policies which dictates the criminal behavior that keeps getting their
organization raided (see Xenu.NET for
suitable references of Scientology policy) Scientology management
is the problem, not the thousands of honest believers who are good,
honest citizens; themselves victims of Scientology - flr]
The name "Narconon"® is trademarked to the Scientology organization through one of their many front groups. The name "Scientology"® is also trademarked to the "Church" of Scientology. Neither this web page, nor this web site, nor any of the individuals mentioned herein assisting to educate the public about the dangers of the Narconon scam are members of or representitives of the Scientology organization.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank