Barcume v. City of Flint

Citation. Barcume v. City of Flint, 819 F.Supp. 631 (E.D. Mich. 1993)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

CitationBarcume v. City of Flint, 819 F.Supp. 631 (E.D. Mich. 1993)

Brief Fact Summary.

Barcume filed a motion to amend a discrimination complaint and the City of Flint sought to dismiss the amended complaint claiming that the statute of limitations had run. 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c), amending a pleading relates back to the original date of the complaint if the claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence of the original pleading. 

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The Court explained that where a plaintiff, pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, challenges not just one incident of conduct violative of the Act, but an unlawful practice that continues into the limitations period, the complaint is timely when it is filed within the statute of limitations of the last asserted occurrence of that practice.

View Full Point of Law

Barcume and other female law enforcement officers filed suit against the City of Flint for discrimination in hiring and promotion. Barcume filed a motion to amend the complaint, and the City of Flint tried to dismiss the complaint claiming that the statute of limitations barred any additional claims. 

Issue.

Does amending a pleading relates back to the original date of the complaint?

Held.

Yes. The judgment is affirmed in part and denied in part. The discrimination claims of count II and Count VI relate back to the original pleading because the complaints put the City of Flint on notice of discrimination claims. The additional sexual harassment claims do not relate back to the original pleading because the original facts did not support a sexual harassment claim.

Discussion.

The City of Flint cannot use a state of limitations defense to bar additional claims in an amended complaint.