Absent unfair delay or futility, does fundamental due process require that a Plaintiff be allowed to amend a complaint at least once before a Court's ruling on Summary Judgment?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitiner was a long-time school teacher in the Bay District School System in Bay County Florida. On or about February-April 2013, Petitioner complained to her principal and other administartors that a student was being physically and mentally bullied by other students and no disciplainary action was taken. Shortly after these complaints were made, Petitioner was terminated a few weeks before the school year ended. As a result, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit under state law and subsequently applied for and was hired as a teacher in a different school but in the same school district. Shortly after Petitioner was hired the Human Resources person for the district fired Petitioner and stated in later testimony that if Petitioner ended her litigation then her chnaces of being employed would increase. Litigation proceded. Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel answers to discovery because there was about a year’s delay in respondent’s providing requested discovery. After discovery was completed, Respondent filed its motion for summary Judgment. Petioner responded and filed a motion to amend her complaint to add a First Amendment retaliation claim along with her response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion to Amend was denied and Summary Judgment granted. ii. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Absent unfair delay or futility, does fundamental due process require that a Plaintiff be allowed to amend a complaint at least once before a Court’s ruling on Summary Judgment? 2. Should a Defendant who caused a lengthy delay in litigation be prevented from prevailing on opposing a first motion to amend? 3. Does a school teacher have an obligation to file a lawsuit pursuant to her job as a teacher that makes her first amendment retaliation claim for filing a lawsuit futile? 4. Is a First Amendment Claim of retaliation for an employee petitioning the courts such a fundmental due process issue that denial of Plaintiff’s first motion to amend to add this claim was abuse of discretion? ili