National Litigation Hotline

Complaint Need Not Be Amended Where Issues Actually Litigated

The Seventh Circuit has held that a Northrop Grumman Corp. employee whose federal complaint alleged age discrimination need not amend his complaint to include allegations of race discrimination, since such issues were actually litigated by the parties during the course of proceedings. Torry v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2005 WL 502835 (7th Cir. Mar. 3)

Former Northrup Grumman employee Nancy Torry, an African-American, filed suit against her former employer, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Torry's complaint did not allege race discrimination, nor did Torry's attorney move to amend the complaint to add a claim under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). However, as the Seventh Circuit noted on appeal, the parties actively litigated allegations with respect to race discrimination and “went through four years of discovery and other pretrial maneuverings without objecting to the fact that its opponent was patently engaged in endeavoring to prove racial as well as age discrimination.” In the federal trial court, Northrop Grumman contended that Torry's failure to amend her complaint effectively barred her from litigating her racial discrimination claims. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled in favor of Torry, trying both the age discrimination and race discrimination claims. Torry did not prevail and appealed.

On appeal to the Seventh Circuit, Northrup Grumman defended the lower court's ruling on the merits, but also, according to the Court, “insist[ed] that he should never have reached the merits of the racial claim.” The Seventh Circuit flatly rejected the company's contention, noting that Northrup Grumman was “wasting our time on a bad argument.” The court noted that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) provides that “when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.” On the merits, however, the Seventh Circuit found that Northrup Grumman should prevail. Torry had been laid off in a reduction in force and did not question the reduction as Northrup Grumman's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Torry's termination.

Complaint Need Not Be Amended Where Issues Actually Litigated

The Seventh Circuit has held that a Northrop Grumman Corp. employee whose federal complaint alleged age discrimination need not amend his complaint to include allegations of race discrimination, since such issues were actually litigated by the parties during the course of proceedings. Torry v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2005 WL 502835 (7th Cir. Mar. 3)

Former Northrup Grumman employee Nancy Torry, an African-American, filed suit against her former employer, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Torry's complaint did not allege race discrimination, nor did Torry's attorney move to amend the complaint to add a claim under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). However, as the Seventh Circuit noted on appeal, the parties actively litigated allegations with respect to race discrimination and “went through four years of discovery and other pretrial maneuverings without objecting to the fact that its opponent was patently engaged in endeavoring to prove racial as well as age discrimination.” In the federal trial court, Northrop Grumman contended that Torry's failure to amend her complaint effectively barred her from litigating her racial discrimination claims. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled in favor of Torry, trying both the age discrimination and race discrimination claims. Torry did not prevail and appealed.

On appeal to the Seventh Circuit, Northrup Grumman defended the lower court's ruling on the merits, but also, according to the Court, “insist[ed] that he should never have reached the merits of the racial claim.” The Seventh Circuit flatly rejected the company's contention, noting that Northrup Grumman was “wasting our time on a bad argument.” The court noted that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) provides that “when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.” On the merits, however, the Seventh Circuit found that Northrup Grumman should prevail. Torry had been laid off in a reduction in force and did not question the reduction as Northrup Grumman's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Torry's termination.