Opinion ID: 2803228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Conform the Pleadings to the Proof

Text: Before the close of trial on her Title VII and ADA retaliation claims, Robinson moved to conform her pleadings to the proof received at trial pursuant to Rule 15(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking thereby to assert a claim that Purcell had retaliated against her by failing to rehire her because she had filed a complaint against the company with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“SDHR”), in light of testimony by two Purcell employees at trial to the effect that Robinson had not been recalled for that reason. Up to that point in the litigation, Robinson’s retaliation claim had been premised on the theory that Purcell had fired her in response to her complaints regarding alleged discriminatory conduct by her colleagues. We review the district court’s denial of that motion for abuse of discretion. See Vt. 5 Plastics, Inc. v. Brine, Inc., 79 F.3d 272, 279 (2d Cir. 1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The theory that Robinson had not been recalled by Purcell after being laid off because she had filed an SDHR complaint against the company, which was in considerable tension with Robinson’s pleaded claim that she had been terminated, rather than laid off, by Purcell, had not been subject to discovery. Moreover, there was no evidence introduced at trial to suggest that Robinson had ever sought to be rehired by Purcell. It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to permit the jury to consider a claim that had not been fairly litigated, and for which there was insufficient evidence, because allowing Robinson to assert the claim would have been unfairly prejudicial to Purcell.3