Complaint amendment; FedRCivP 15(a)(2); Futility; Whether an amended complaint could survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss; Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) retaliation; Retaliatory act & motive; Burlington N & Santa Fe Ry Co v White (the Burlington Northern standard); Title IX sex discrimination; Muldrow v City of St. Louis; Discriminatory act & motive; Whether the claim was “facially plausible”

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court reversed the district court’s denial of plaintiff-Ahmed’s motion to file a fourth amended complaint adding FMLA retaliation and Title IX discrimination claims, holding that the amendment was not futile. After three months of medical leave during the COVID-19 pandemic, Ahmed, the Superintendent of defendant-Hamtramck Schools, was informed that she was being placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation of alleged misconduct. She later learned that no investigation was undertaken. She sued the school district as well as defendants-Hamtramck Federation of Teachers and individual school board members, raising multiple claims. This appeal concerned her fourth motion to amend her complaint. After denying it as futile, the district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims in the original complaint. On appeal, the court considered her proposed FMLA retaliation and Title IX sex discrimination claims. It explained that an amendment would only be “futile if it could not withstand a Rule (12)(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Thus, she was only required to plead a claim that was “plausible on its face.” As to her FMLA retaliation claim, she had to allege sufficient facts for the court to infer that “defendants retaliated against her because of her protected FMLA activity, but she need not plead a prima facie case of retaliation. The district court erred by applying a heightened pleading standard to her claim[.]” As to a retaliatory act, the court held that her allegation that she was on paid administrative leave for over a year was sufficient. And her “allegations that the District and Board acted at the first meaningful opportunity raise the plausible inference that they acted with retaliatory motive.” As to her Title IX claim, the district court again “erred in requiring Ahmed to establish a prima facie case” to avoid a futility finding. She only needed to allege a plausible claim. The court applied the Title VII anti-discrimination standard. Noting that the Supreme Court clarified the standard as to the adverse employment action requirement in Muldrow, the court held that she “plausibly alleged that her paid administrative leave caused her some harm concerning a term or condition of her job.” As to discriminatory motive, she pointed to the fact that her male interim replacement “was not placed on paid leave during the District’s investigation of his supposed misconduct[.]” Thus, she “plausibly alleged that her sex was a motivating factor for that discriminatory treatment.” Vacated and remanded.