## Facts

- Maradean Barcume and twelve other female law-enforcement officers sued the City of Flint (City) and the Flint Police Officers Association (FPOA), alleging sex discrimination within the Flint Police Department (FPD).
- The original complaint (filed in 1984) asserted multiple civil-rights and related claims arising from alleged discriminatory hiring and advancement practices and the defendants’ handling of employment rights.
- After extensive discovery, plaintiffs sought and received leave to file an amended pleading (described in the record as a second amended complaint).
- The amended pleading refined and expanded certain discrimination theories tied to hiring and advancement practices and also added allegations framed as sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment.
- The City challenged the amended counts on statute-of-limitations grounds and argued that the newly added allegations did not “relate back” to the 1984 complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c).
- The motion before the court was the City’s motion for summary judgment, which required the court to determine which claims were timely (including whether Rule 15(c) or a continuing-violation theory kept any claims alive) and whether plaintiffs had evidence that could support municipal liability under § 1983.

## Issues

1. Whether the amended discrimination claims relating to hiring and advancement arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original complaint so that they related back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) and were timely.
2. Whether newly pleaded sexual-harassment/hostile-work-environment allegations related back to the original complaint, or instead were time-barred absent a continuing-violation basis for timeliness.
3. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence of a City policy or custom to avoid summary judgment on the § 1983 equal-protection theory for any timely portion of the case.

## Decision

- The court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part.
- The court held that amended claims focused on discriminatory hiring and advancement practices (including counts addressing equal-protection and Elliott-Larsen discrimination theories) related back to the original pleading because the original complaint gave the City notice of the core conduct being challenged.
- The court held that the later-added sexual-harassment and hostile-environment allegations did not relate back under Rule 15(c) because the original pleading did not place the City on notice that plaintiffs were asserting liability based on that distinct category of conduct.
- To the extent hostile-environment allegations could not relate back, the court limited them under the applicable limitations rules; only conduct fitting within a continuing-violation framework (and tied to acts within the limitations period) could proceed, if supported by the record.
- The court declined to grant summary judgment in the City’s favor on the § 1983 claim to the extent plaintiffs’ timely allegations and proof raised a triable question that the challenged discrimination was connected to a municipal policy or custom rather than isolated actions by employees.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), an amended claim relates back when it arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out (or attempted to be set out) in the original pleading.
- Relation back turns largely on notice: the question is whether the original pleading fairly alerted the defendant to the factual basis later asserted, so that the defendant is not unfairly surprised by a new set of operative facts.
- An amendment that expands or clarifies a previously pleaded discrimination challenge to the same employment practices is more likely to relate back than an amendment that introduces a different form of wrongdoing requiring different factual proof (such as newly asserted sexual-harassment/hostile-environment allegations when the earlier pleading focused on hiring/advancement decisions).
- For claims that do not relate back, ordinary limitations rules apply; discrete employment actions outside the limitations period are generally time-barred, while a continuing-violation theory requires a connected course of conduct with at least one act within the limitations period.
- A municipality may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the alleged constitutional violation is attributable to municipal policy or custom; municipal liability does not rest on respondeat superior for employee misconduct.
- On summary judgment, the movant is entitled to judgment only if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

Barcume v. City of Flint held that plaintiffs’ amended sex-discrimination claims tied to the same alleged hiring and advancement practices identified in the original complaint related back under Rule 15(c) and could proceed despite limitations defenses, but newly asserted sexual-harassment/hostile-environment allegations did not relate back where the original pleading did not give notice of that theory; the court therefore granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part, leaving for trial the timely portions of the case, including § 1983 claims supported by evidence of a City policy or custom.


Barcume v. City of Flint, 819 F. Supp. 631 (1993)