United States District Court, D. Columbia.
SIMONE L. GREGGS, Plaintiff,
AUTISM SPEAKS, INC., Defendant
Re Document No.: 19.
For SIMONE L. GREGGS, Plaintiff: Ardra M. O'Neal, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'NEAL FIRM, LLP, Washington, DC.
For AUTISM SPEAKS, INC., Defendant: Anessa Abrams, LEAD ATTORNEY, FORD & HARRISON LLP, Washington, DC.
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge.
GRANTING DEFENDANT AUTISM SPEAKS, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF GREGGS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
This action arises out of the Defendant's alleged violation of the " association provision" of the Americans with Disabilities Act (" ADA" ) of 1990. Since January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff has amended her complaint twice. The Defendant now seeks to have the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint stricken from the record. For the following reasons, this Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Strike.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff, Ms. Simone Greggs, filed a complaint asserting that the Defendant Autism Speaks, Inc. breached an employment contract with the Plaintiff and engaged in disability and race discrimination in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (1990), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, respectively. See Compl. at 6-8, ECF No. 1. The Plaintiff's original claims stemmed from the Defendant's decision to rescind an offer of employment it had made to the Plaintiff. See id. at 5. The Plaintiff, an African-American woman and mother to an autistic child, maintained that the rescission was a result of the Defendant's refusal to accommodate her request for a flexible work schedule necessary to tend to her autistic son's childcare needs. See id. at 6-8.
After the Defendant moved to dismiss all of the Plaintiff's claims on January 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2014, abandoning all of her previous accusations and asserting only a violation of the " association provision" of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(4) (1991). See Def.'s Mot. Dism., ECF No. 11; Am. Compl. at 3, ECF. No. 14. On February 3, 2014, the Defendant filed its Answer to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Answer to Am. Compl., ECF No. 15. Then, without obtaining the Defendant's written consent or the court's leave, on March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint seeking to add a claim for promissory estoppel. See 2d Am. Compl. at 5, ECF No. 18. ...