MARILYN PATEL, District JudgePage 2
STIPULATION
Plaintiff Bernadette Reed and defendant UBS Securities LLC ("UBS"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. On November 4, 2009, plaintiff filed her complaint with this Court, initiating this proceeding.
2. Plaintiff represents that on the same day, she submitted an Amended Charge of Discrimination ("Amended Charge") to the Boston office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), where her Initial Charge had been processed, and that the Amended Charge included an additional claim for retaliation based on new facts that occurred since her filing of the Initial Charge.
3. On February 1, 2010, the parties filed a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Selecting ADR Process. The parties agreed that by May 31, 2010, after they conducted adequate discovery, they would agree to either private mediation with a mutually agreeable mediator or binding arbitration.
4. UBS initially noticed plaintiff's deposition for April 7, 2010.
5. Plaintiff requested that UBS postpone her deposition from April 7, 2010, to May 18, 2010, to accommodate her change in employment and relocation to New York. UBS agreed and deposed plaintiff on May 18, 2010.
6. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court extended the deadline to participate in an ADR process from May 31, 2010, to June 30, 2010.
7. Plaintiff represents that on March 5, 2010, she requested a Notice of Right to Sue letter for her Amended Charge.
8. Plaintiff represents that after subsequent correspondence with the EEOC, plaintiff was informed that the Boston EEOC office had failed to update the system properly and, as such, the Amended Charge had never been processed.
9. Plaintiff represents that pursuant to the EEOC Investigator's instruction, on March 31, 2010, plaintiff submitted a new Charge of Discrimination to the New York EEOC office, which included the additional facts and claim for retaliation.
10. Plaintiff contends that her original November 4, 2009, complaint in this action contained, among other things, the facts and allegations underlying the retaliation claim.
11. Plaintiff represented that she intended to file an amended complaint adding a claim for retaliation as soon as she received her Right to Sue notice from the EEOC.
12. On March 4, 2010, following the initial case management conference for this action, this Court ordered that plaintiff file an amended complaint either pursuant to the parties' stipulation or by motion for leave to amend by May 3, 2010.
13. On May 3, 2010, plaintiff requested that UBS stipulate to extend the deadline by which she must file a motion for leave to amend her complaint. The Court adopted the parties' stipulation and extended plaintiff's time to file a motion for leave to amend her complaint to June 28, 2010.
14. Plaintiff represents that on May 12, 2010, plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC.
15. UBS's investigation of plaintiff's allegations is continuing; furthermore, UBS has been unable to fully investigate any new claims plaintiff proposes to add in her amended complaint.
16. The parties have not had enough time to complete adequate discovery and participate in an ADR process by the current June 30, 2010, deadline.
17. Accordingly, the parties ask the Court to extend the date by which they must complete their ADR process from June 30, 2010, to August 31, 2010. This postponement will not affect any other dates set by the Court.
ORDER
On the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties' stipulation be and is hereby adopted as the order of the Court and that the parties complete their ADR process by August 31, 2010.