Opinion
Civil No. 3: 03-CV-1403-H
November 17, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Join Janet Clewis as Plaintiff, filed October 29, 2003, and Defendant Minyard Food Stores, Inc.'s Response, filed November 10, 2003. Upon review of the pleadings, briefs, and relevant authorities, the Court is of the Opinion for the reasons stated below that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Join Janet Clewis as Plaintiff should be GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Joyce Wade ("Wade") brings claims against Defendant Minyard Food Stores ("Minyard") for sexual harassment pursuant to Title VJJ and against Defendant Ronnie Lane ("Lane") for assault pursuant to state law. (Compl. at 1). Wade also brings a claim against both defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at 4). Wade seeks to add another plaintiff, Janet Clewis ("Clewis"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). (See Pl.'s Mot. at 1). Plaintiffs' proposed First Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for both Wade and Clewis against Minyard for sexual harassment pursuant to Title VII and against Lane for assault. ( See Proposed First Am. Compl. at 3-6). Minyard argues that Wade and Clewis cannot meet the requirements for permissive joinder pursuant to Rule 20(a). Namely, Minyard contends that their claims do not arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences and that their claims do not present common questions of law or fact.
Although the cause of action against Lane for assault of Clewis is not listed as a separate claim in the First Amended Complaint, the Court notes that paragraph 32 states facts sufficient to state a claim for assault as to Clewis. (See Proposed First Am. Compl. at 6).
II. ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Rule 20(a), "[a]11 persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action." FED.R.Civ.P. 20(a). "[T]he transaction and common question requirements prescribed by Rule 20(a) are not rigid tests . . . they are flexible concepts used by the courts to implement the purpose of Rule 20 and therefore are to be read as broadly as possible whenever doing so is likely to promote judicial economy." Battison v. City of Electra, No. 7:01-CV-037-R, 2001 WL 497769, *1 (N.D.Tex. May 8, 2001) (quoting Weber v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. CIV. A. 00-2876, 2001 WL 274518, *2 (E.D.La. 2001) (citing Wright, Miller Kane, FEDERAL PRACTICE PROCEDURE, § 1653 (1986))).The Supreme Court also strongly encourages the joinder of claims, parties, and remedies. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S.715, 724 (1966) ("Under the Rules, the impulse is towards entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.").
The instant case meets the first requirement because both Wade and Clewis's claims arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences. In determining whether this test is met, the Court considers whether there is a logical relationship between the claims. See Weber, 2001 WL 274518, at *1. "Several courts have concluded that allegations of a pattern or practice of discrimination may describe such logically related events and satisfy the same transaction requirement," particularly in employment discrimination cases. Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d 1303, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000). See also Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 1974) (reversing the trial court's severance of plaintiffs' claims because the defendant's policy was "purportedly designed to discriminate against blacks in employment" and therefore, arose out of the same series of transactions and occurrences). Plaintiffs' proposed First Amended Complaint has alleged that Minyard had a practice of tolerating sexual harassment by its managers and terminating the victims who complained. (See First Am. Compl. at 4). Therefore, Wade and Clewis's claims arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences.
The second requirement of Rule 20(a) is also met in the instant case. Wade and Clewis's sexual harassment claims present common questions of law. See Alexander, 207 F.3d at 1324. See also Lott v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 3:97-CV-2560-P, 1999 WL 242688, *2 (N.D.Tex. April 16, 1999) ("Both Plaintiffs have alleged that they were victims of employment discrimination based on age. As such, a common question of law is present."). Similarly, Wade and Clewis's claims of assault against Lane also present common questions of law.
Because both requirements for permissive joinder pursuant to Rule 20(a) are met in the instant case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Join Janet Clewis as Plaintiff.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs Motion to Join Janet Clewis as Plaintiff is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.
SO ORDERED.