COLUMBUS (LN) — A federal judge in Ohio on Tuesday refused to strike the amended complaint of Darian Cox, a Black former safety coordinator who alleges his employer, Cupertino Electric, Inc., subjected him to racial slurs, a noose and graffiti at his job site, and then fired him in December 2024 without following its own progressive disciplinary policy.
Cox, who alleges he was the only African-American employee on Cupertino's safety team, claims his supervisor, Randy Hamilton, made several comments that Cox "should not be there" and that it was "unfair" Cox was on the team — and that Hamilton used the n-word in conversation. Other managers and employees who heard the comments took no action, Cox alleges.
Months later, Cox alleges, "there was a noose and racial slurs graffitied on a wall at the job site." When he reported it to Hamilton, the supervisor downplayed his concerns. By December 2024, Cox alleges Hamilton's behavior "grew more aggressive and hostile," culminating in a search of Cox's belongings on December 8 and his termination four days later.
Cox sued Cupertino on October 22, 2025, asserting race discrimination claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and analogous Ohio law. Cupertino moved to dismiss, calling the original complaint "replete with conclusory allegations" and arguing the incidents amounted to "unrelated occurrences and attenuated remarks." It also alleged Cox had brought a gun to work.
Cox filed an amended complaint on March 4, 2026 — 21 days after Cupertino's dismissal motion, within the window Rule 15 normally allows — but past a January 27 scheduling-order deadline for amendment motions. Cupertino moved to strike the amended pleading and reinstate its original dismissal motion.
U.S. District Judge Douglas R. Cole denied the motion to strike, concluding Cox had shown good cause under Rule 16 and that the liberal amendment standard of Rule 15 favored letting the case proceed on the merits. The judge noted that the scheduling order and Cupertino's own extension of time to respond had effectively "deprived Cox of his opportunity to amend his Complaint once as a matter of right as Rule 15(a) provides."
Cole also rejected Cupertino's prejudice argument. The company had argued it "expended considerable time, effort, and resources preparing and filing its Motion to Dismiss," but the judge concluded that even if Cupertino had succeeded on that motion, the court almost certainly would have allowed Cox to amend anyway — leaving the parties in roughly the same position they occupy now.
Cupertino must move or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by May 13, 2026.