Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05237/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05237-7/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNADETTE REED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBS SECURITIES, LLC,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-5237 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint

Plaintiff Bernadette Reed brought this action against defendant UBS Securities, LLC alleging

various causes of action. Now before the court is plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to allege

retaliation-based causes of action. The court finds this motion suitable for decision without oral

argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

Plaintiff seeks to allege a claim for retaliation under both federal and California laws. She

has received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC with respect to her federal claim. Defendant does

not oppose the amendment with respect to the federal claim; however, for reasons substantially

similar to its motion to dismiss, Docket No. 20, defendant argues plaintiff should not be allowed to

assert a claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). See Docket No. 38

(Opposition).

On August 3, 2010, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FEHA claims. 

Docket No. 40 (Order). For substantially the same reasons, plaintiff’s motion to amend her

complaint is granted. Plaintiff should now proceed to obtain a right-to-sue letter from the DFEH

with respect to her retaliation claim under state law, and amend her complaint accordingly.

Case 3:09-cv-05237-MHP Document 43 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to amend is GRANTED. If plaintiff intends to

proceed with her retaliation claim under FEHA, she should obtain a right-to-sue letter from the

DFEH and amend her complaint within sixty (60) days of the date of the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2010 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:09-cv-05237-MHP Document 43 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 2