Judge Says No to New, Expanded Complaint in
Age Discrimination Suit Against PGW
November 1, 2011
A federal judge in Pennsylvania has denied a request from the plaintiffs
in a suit filed against Pittsburgh Glass Works (PGW) last September
alleging age discrimination.
The plaintiffs include seven former employees who allege they were
let go in March 2009 due to their age. They had
requested for the court to allow them to file a new complaint
that would have added allegations that PGW failed "to adhere
to extensive and long-standing written policies and procedures governing
how RIFs were to be conducted within the organization, that had
been in place within the automotive glass business when it was owned
The new complaint would have further alleged that "at the
direction of Kohlberg and company
and Kohlberg principal
and CEO of PGW, Jim Wiggins, PGW arbitrarily employed such policies
and practices systematically and continuously to discriminate against
The court had previously set a deadline of April 15 for any such
amendments, though plaintiffs allege that through discovery they've
learned more about how the layoffs came about and how those affected
The court ruled that the plaintiffs "have not shown good cause"
for a change of dates and permission to file the complaint.
"In this court's estimation, plaintiffs have not demonstrated
that they were diligent in pursuing the discovery that they claim
led to the motion to amend," writes Judge Nora Barry Fischer.
"To the contrary, plaintiffs' argument in its reply demonstrates
that they were anything but diligent in pursuing the relevant discovery."
Fischer also says there is a flaw in the plaintiffs' argument that
late discovery is what led to the request. "Plaintiffs argue
that they did not receive the discovery, which presumably led to
their motion to amend, until June and July of 2011," she writes.
"The court notes that the vast majority of Defendant's written
discovery response was produced by June 23, 2011-only 17 of 6,446
pages were produced thereafter."
The plaintiffs also are
seeking class certification in the case, and the court argues
that "a diligent party should file the motion to amend before
the deadline for certification."
"The foregoing makes clear that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate
that they exercised due diligence in seeking the discovery they
now claim to be critical to their proposed amendment," adds
The denial was issued yesterday. The court has not yet ruled on
the motion for class certification in the suit.
This story is an original story by AGRR™ magazine/glassBYTEs.com™. Subscribe to AGRR™ Magazine.
Subscribe to receive the free e-newsletter.