Bolden-Hardge v. California State Controller

“Leave to amend should be granted generously, after considering ‘bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.’” Bolden-Hardge v. California State Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1221 (2023) (quoting United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011)).

Bolden-Hardge brought suit against the California State Controller and the Controller’s Office (collectively “the Controller”) under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) after the Controller refused to add an addendum to the loyalty oath to accommodate her religion. The district court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.  Bolden-Hardge appealed, assigning error to the district court’s denial of an opportunity to amend. The Controller argued that her claims lacked standing, and argued business necessity and undue hardship defenses. “Leave to amend should be granted generously, after considering ‘bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.’” Bolden-Hardge v. California State Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1221 (2023) (quoting United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011)). The Court reversed the district court’s denial of an opportunity to amend, holding that no evidence on the record indicated prejudice, delay, bad faith, or previous amendments. The Court held further that the Controller was not entitled to present a business necessity defense at the current stage, and could not raise an undue hardship defense because, since it was an affirmative defense and extending it to government employers could allow them to evade accommodation requirements, it was unavailable at the pre-discovery stage unless the defense’s success was facially obvious. REVERSED AND REMANDED.