The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES RONALD NORGLE, SR.,
CHARLES R. NORGLE, SR., District Judge:
Before the court is Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint and Defendant's motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is granted. Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Clayton employed Clarence Golden ("Golden") as an Activity Director starting in November 1989. He has not worked at Clayton since April 26, 1991. During this period, Golden had authority to hire, discipline, and evaluate employees. He also could recommend their termination. Ware began working under his supervision as an Activity Aide on March 12, 1990. During the course of her employment, Golden grabbed her breast and buttocks on two occasions. He also made vulgar comments to her on other occasions. She complained about this behavior to Robert Baily ("Baily"), the Administrator, and to Georgie Magit ("Magit"), the Assistant Administrator. Magit stated that she would talk to Golden, but Golden did not discontinue his behavior. Ware resigned on January 3, 1991. Ware has been reinstated at Clayton, settled all back pay issues, accepted settlement funds, and released all back pay claims.
Sherry Rowland began working at Clayton as an Activity Aide on June 22, 1989. Golden was her direct supervisor from November 1989, until she left on March 30, 1990. During the course of her employment, she alleges that Golden regularly and frequently made vulgar remarks to her. These remarks were of a sexual nature, and she viewed them as hostile and offensive. On one occasion, Golden stroked her leg, and on several occasions she saw him pinch women on the buttocks. In addition to Golden, Rowland saw Baily fondle a women's breast at a Clayton Christmas party. When she confronted Baily, he told her to leave the party. Rowland resigned from Clayton on March 30, 1990 and was unemployed until June 25, 1990.
The E.E.O.C. seeks to amend its complaint to clarify that in addition to Ware, Sherry Rowland ("Rowland") was constructively discharged on the basis of her sex and that acts of sexual harassment occurred up until April 26, 1991, as opposed to January 3, 1991.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend a pleading should be "freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). "In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment," amendment should be allowed. King v. Cooke, 26 F.3d 720, 723 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962)).
None of the concerns discussed in King are apparent in this case. Allowing amendment to the complaint will not require that discovery be reopened or that the trial be delayed. Clayton has not demonstrated that there is any bad faith or dilatory motive behind the E.E.O.C.'s request to amend, nor that any undue prejudice to itself will result. The E.E.O.C.'s original complaint alleged that a class of women had been sexually harassed. The E.E.O.C. contends that Rowland is one of these women. The proposed amendment merely serves to clarify the allegations. The amendment extending the date of the acts alleged to April 26, 1991, merely serves to encompass all the time in which Golden was employed at Clayton.
Clayton has taken Rowland's deposition. Clayton's motion for summary judgment refers to several documents which it contends show that Rowland was not constructively discharged. Clayton also refers to these documents in its pretrial order as potential exhibits to attack her testimony. Thus, it is quite clear that Clayton is prepared to meet Rowland's allegations. Consequently, it is not prejudiced by the amendment, nor has it shown that it is prejudiced by extending the final date of the acts ...