Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_23-cv-00167/USCOURTS-alnd-2_23-cv-00167-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES C MARTIN, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE ALABAMA GREAT 

SOUTHERN RAILROAD 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 2:23-cv-00167-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Charles C. Martin III has sued The Alabama Great Southern Railroad 

Company, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, and Norfolk Southern Corporation

for employment discrimination. Mr. Martin worked as a trainman and conductor for 

the defendants from May of 1979 until the defendants removed him from service in 

January of 2021. Mr. Martin alleges that the defendants discriminated against him 

based on his age and a perceived disability by removing him from service and then 

failing to reinstate him after his physician and the defendants’ medical department 

cleared him to return to work. 

In his initial complaint, which he filed on February 9, 2023, Mr. Martin 

asserted claims against the defendants for age discrimination and retaliation under 

FILED

 2024 Jan-17 PM 12:43

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:23-cv-00167-MHH Document 34 Filed 01/17/24 Page 1 of 7
2

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. (Doc. 1). On 

April 14, 2023, Mr. Martin filed an amended complaint in which he reasserted his 

ADEA claims and added a claim for disability discrimination under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (Doc. 18). The defendants argue 

that Mr. Martin’s ADA claim is untimely, and they have asked the Court to dismiss

that claim. (Doc. 25). 

The question the defendants pose is whether the ADA claim in Mr. Martin’s 

amended complaint, which “fall[s] outside the statute of limitations, . . . relates back 

to the date of filing of the original complaint pursuant to Rule 15(c).” Iriele v. 

Griffin, 65 F.4th 1280, 1287 (11th Cir. 2023). If the ADA claim “relates back,” then 

the statute of limitations does not prevent Mr. Martin from pursuing his ADA claim.1 

Under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an amendment to a 

pleading relates back to the filing date of the original pleading and saves an 

otherwise untimely claim when the amendment adds “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.” Caron v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., 910 F.3d 1359, 1368 (11th 

Cir. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B)). “[R]elation back depends on the 

existence of a common ‘core of operative facts’ uniting the original and newly 

1 Mr. Martin administratively exhausted his ADA claim and his ADEA claims in one EEOC 

charge. (Doc. 18-1). Mr. Martin filed his ADEA claim within the time allotted after he received 

his EEOC right-to-sue letter. 

Case 2:23-cv-00167-MHH Document 34 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 7
3

asserted claims.” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 659 (2005). Claims added in an 

amended complaint will not relate back when the new claims “‘involve separate and 

distinct conduct,’ such that the plaintiff would have to prove ‘completely different 

facts’ than required to recover on the claims in the original complaint.” Iriele, 65 

F.4th at 1287 (alteration adopted) (quoting Caron, 910 F.3d at 1368).

As the Court explained during oral argument on the defendants’ motion to 

dismiss, the factual allegations concerning Mr. Martin’s ADA claim are almost 

verbatim of the factual allegations Mr. Martin asserted in his original complaint. Mr. 

Martin’s new ADA discrimination claim and his ADEA discrimination claim 

concern the circumstances surrounding the defendants’ decision to remove him from 

service and the defendants’ failure to reinstate him after he was cleared to return to 

work. The ADA claim in the amended complaint arose from conduct virtually 

identical to the conduct Mr. Martin described in his original complaint such that the 

amendment relates back to the filing date of the original complaint under Rule 

15(c)(1)(B). Cf. Iriele, 65 F.4th at 1287 (new claims in amended complaint related 

back to the filing date of the original complaint where new claims were based on 

conduct “virtually identical” to the conduct the plaintiff alleged in the original 

complaint).

The defendants’ argument that Mr. Martin’s amended complaint does not 

relate back under Rule 15(c) because the “original complaint does not assert an ADA 

Case 2:23-cv-00167-MHH Document 34 Filed 01/17/24 Page 3 of 7
4

claim” is not persuasive. (Doc. 25, p. 9). Rule 15(c) does not require the legal 

theories in an amended pleading to match those asserted in the original pleading; if 

a new claim in an amended complaint arises “out of the conduct, transaction, or 

occurrence set out—or attempted to be set out—in the original pleading,” that is 

enough to satisfy Rule 15(c). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B); see also 6A Charles Alan 

Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1497 

(3d ed. 2023) (“The fact that an amendment changes the legal theory on which the 

action initially was brought is of no consequence if the factual situation upon which 

the action depends remains the same and has been brought to defendant’s attention 

by the original pleading.”); Watkins v. Lujan, 922 F.2d 261, 265 (5th Cir. 1991)

(“[T]he relation-back doctrine is controlled not by the caption given a particular 

cause of action, but by the underlying facts upon which the cause of action is 

based.”). “Indeed, an amendment that states an entirely new claim for relief will 

relate back as long as it satisfies the test embodied in Rule 15(c)(1)(B).” 6A Wright, 

Miller, & Kane § 1497.

2

 

The defendants’ argument that the amended complaint “does not rely on the 

factual allegations set forth in the original [c]omplaint” because the original 

2 Rule 15(c)’s focus on the similarities between the factual underpinnings for a plaintiff’s original 

claims and the claims a plaintiff adds through an amendment makes sense. The scope of discovery 

is not likely to change significantly when a plaintiff adds a new legal theory to a complaint, and a 

plaintiff may have only one recovery for a single harm, so an alternative legal theory does not 

expand a defendant’s exposure to damages. 

Case 2:23-cv-00167-MHH Document 34 Filed 01/17/24 Page 4 of 7
5

complaint “makes no mention of [Mr. Martin] having any disability” fares no better. 

(Doc. 25, pp. 13–14). The original complaint and amended complaint include 

allegations about the medical evaluations that the defendants required Mr. Martin to 

have. In both pleadings, Mr. Martin alleges that the defendants “refused to show 

[him] the results of the work evaluations and . . . never told him what impairment 

they believe he has.” (Compare Doc. 1, ¶¶ 23–26, 28, 30, 33–36, 39; with Doc. 18, 

¶¶ 24–27, 32, 34–38, 41). Mr. Martin’s allegation that the defendants believed he 

had an impairment is synonymous with an allegation that the defendants regarded 

him as disabled. Mr. Martin did not have to use the term “disability” to have his 

ADA claim relate back to his ADEA claim for purposes of Rule 15(c).3

Finally, the opinions to which the defendants point as grounds for dismissal 

are distinguishable. For example, the defendants cite this Court’s holding in Stewart 

v. T-Mobile, USA, 2015 WL 1345662 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 23, 2015). Stewart is 

distinguishable because Ms. Stewart attempted to plead an ADA failure-toaccommodate claim in an amended complaint based on facts that she did not allege 

3 Mr. Martin’s ADA discrimination claim is not a failure to accommodate claim, so he did not have 

to allege facts relating to efforts to obtain an accommodation. See Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 

492 F.3d 1247, 1262–63 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining that a plaintiff may prove discrimination 

under the ADA through either a disparate treatment theory or failure-to-accommodate theory); 

Brown v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Atlanta, 2021 WL 2471054, at *5 (N.D. Ga. May 4, 2021) (plaintiff’s 

amended complaint adding claims under the ADA, including a failure-to-accommodate claim, did 

not relate back to the original complaint asserting FMLA claims absent factual allegations in the 

original complaint that the plaintiff requested and was denied a reasonable accommodation).

Case 2:23-cv-00167-MHH Document 34 Filed 01/17/24 Page 5 of 7
6

in her original complaint. Ms. Stewart’s original complaint concerned her 

termination for absenteeism after her employer denied her requests for FMLA leave. 

Stewart, 2:11-cv-03655-MHH (N.D. Ala.) (Compare Doc. 1, with Doc. 26). This 

Court concluded that the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim did not relate back 

“because the original complaint did not put [the defendant] on notice that it would 

have to defend against an ADA claim.” 2015 WL 1345662, at *5.4 Here, Mr. 

Martin’s new ADA claim is based on the factual allegations in his original 

complaint. Thus, his amended complaint meets the criteria under Rule 15(c), and 

his ADA discrimination claim relates back to his ADEA discrimination claim such 

that his ADA claim is timely. 

For these reasons, the Court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 

25). No later than January 24, 2024, the parties shall comply with their Rule 26 

obligations as set forth in the Court’s initial order. (Doc. 15).

4 Cf. Brown v. Montgomery Surgical Ctr., 2013 WL 1163427, at *8 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 20, 2013) 

(amended complaint adding ADA claim did not relate back where original complaint was 

“restrict[ed] . . . to facts indicating retaliatory treatment by her employer” and did not suggest that 

the plaintiff was discriminated against due to a disability); Leonard v. Am. Color Graphics, Inc., 

2005 WL 8158436, at *5 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 8, 2005) (amended complaint asserting new ADA claim 

“list[ed] multiple new factual allegations regarding the Plaintiff’s disability” and thus did not arise 

out of the same operative facts set out in the original complaint asserting claims for racial and age 

discrimination).

Case 2:23-cv-00167-MHH Document 34 Filed 01/17/24 Page 6 of 7
7

DONE and ORDERED this January 17, 2024.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00167-MHH Document 34 Filed 01/17/24 Page 7 of 7