Summary
This Report and Recommendation addresses plaintiff Grayson Cotes’s motion for leave to amend his employment-discrimination complaint, defendant Allegis Group, Inc.’s opposition, a pending motion to dismiss, and plaintiff’s motion for contempt. The magistrate judge recommends granting in part and denying in part the motion to amend, denying the motion to dismiss as moot, and denying the contempt motion. The discussion concerns joinder of Aerotek as a purported necessary party, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and alleged Title VII, Virginia Human Rights Act, and Virginia whistleblower retaliation claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
- Whether the proposed amended complaint was futile because it failed to join Aerotek as a necessary party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.
- Whether plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies against Allegis because Allegis was not named as a respondent in his EEOC charge.
- Whether the proposed amended complaint plausibly stated Title VII and Virginia Human Rights Act discrimination and retaliation claims against Allegis.
- Whether the proposed amended complaint plausibly stated a Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law claim against Allegis.
- Whether plaintiff was entitled to contempt relief against Allegis and its counsel.
Holdings
- The proposed amended complaint was not futile for failure to join Aerotek because Allegis did not meet its burden to show that Aerotek was a necessary party or that complete relief could not be accorded among the existing parties.
- The proposed amendment was not futile on exhaustion grounds because the substantial-identity exception could plausibly apply where plaintiff named Aerotek but the right-to-sue notice included Allegis and the alleged corporate and employment relationships were unclear.
- The proposed amended complaint did not allege sufficient facts to state Title VII or VHRA discrimination and retaliation claims against Allegis because it did not plausibly show that Allegis knew or should have known about the alleged religious and sex-based discrimination and harassment or plaintiff's related complaints.
- The proposed amended complaint sufficiently stated a Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law claim against Allegis because plaintiff alleged that he made wage-related complaints and provided applicable Virginia laws to an Allegis representative.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to contempt relief against Allegis or its counsel because he could not use criminal statutes to pursue a private criminal contempt action and did not establish a basis for civil or criminal contempt.
Key quotations
“Leave to amend pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would have been futile.”
“Dismissal of a case [for nonjoinder] is a drastic remedy . . . which should be employed only sparingly.”
“a finding that two companies are an employee’s ‘joint employers’ only affects each employer’s liability to the employee for their own actions, not for each other’s actions”
Factual background
Plaintiff worked at Altec as an electrical assembler through an alleged relationship involving Allegis and Aerotek. He alleged that an Altec employee sexually assaulted or groped him, that coworkers and supervisors engaged in harassment and discrimination, and that he reported those concerns to Altec personnel. He also alleged that he reported wage, tax-document, safety, and religious-representation concerns to an Allegis account manager, and that he was terminated shortly thereafter. Plaintiff filed EEOC and Virginia civil-rights charges identifying Aerotek, later received right-to-sue notices, and sought to add Altec as a defendant.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the action on September 9, 2025, asserting employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation, whistleblower, and related claims against Allegis. Allegis moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7). Plaintiff moved for leave to amend to add Altec Industries, Inc., clarify his allegations against Allegis, and narrow his claims. The magistrate judge recommended granting leave in part and denying it in part, denying the motion to dismiss as moot, and denying the motion for contempt, subject to review by the presiding district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Remand instructions
The magistrate judge recommended granting plaintiff 14 days to file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, with a proposed second amended complaint, if he wished to pursue Counts 1 through 3 against Allegis or claims against Aerotek. The recommendation was transmitted to the presiding district judge for de novo review of any timely objections.