There have been a significant amount of pro se employment discrimination complaint filings in the U.S.D.C. in and for Delaware. A review of the decisions from the last six months are decisions on motions to dismiss rather than any substantive decisions.

Tani filed a complaint regarding his alleged employment contract and his termination from employment. He filed suit against three separate defendants. The complaint was over 50 pages and made several allegations ranging from employment discrimination to fraud. The plaintiff filed a motion for default against one of the defendants for its failure to respond to the complaint. The remaining defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which were granted. The plaintiff was given additional time to file an amended complaint. The court held that because the pro se plaintiff seemingly named the wrong corporate defendant in his employment discrimination case, the court, in its discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), agreed to allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint to name the correct corporate defendant in order to serve the interests of justice. In this case, the plaintiff sent a copy of the complaint via certified mail to a company that he believed was the correct defendant, however, the company named in the suit did not exist. It seems that the courts will continue to be lenient with pro se plaintiffs, and employers should be cognizant of this if and when they receive a complaint.

Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012