Bamba v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS-FPS)

S.D. New York

Bamba v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS-FPS)

DecidedJune 22, 2023

Docket1:19-cv-08646

StatusUnknown

This text of Bamba v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS-FPS) (Bamba v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS-FPS)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bamba v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS-FPS), (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X MIANKANZE BAMBA, 19-CV-8646 (LJL) (VF) Plaintiff, ORDER -against-

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY-FPS, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge: The pending motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 76) appears to have been brought on behalf of only Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 77 at 1, 90 at 1. Yet, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-FPS still appears on the docket as a named defendant in this action. It is well-settled that the only proper defendant in a Title VII suit brought by a government employee is “the head of the department, agency, or unit.” See Vargas v. United States Postal Serv., No. 05-CV-4447 (BSJ), 2007 WL 9817927, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2007) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (c)); Correa v. Carnahan, No. 22-CV-10213 (ALC), 2022 WL 17805623, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022) (“Employment discrimination actions brought by government employees under Title VII . . . must be brought against the head of the agency in which the allegedly discriminatory acts occurred.”) (citation omitted); see also Williams v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 23-CV-2348 (LTS), 2023 WL 3728375, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2023) (“The proper defendant for [Title VII] claims brought by a current or former federal employee is the head of the relevant agency.”) (citation omitted); Drayton v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 654 F. Supp. 558, 562 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (“It is clear from the language of [Title VII] that suit must be brought against the head of the agency . . . An action may not be brought against the agency itself.”); Healy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 677 F. Supp. 1284, 1287 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (noting that “[iJn commencing a [Title VII] civil action against a department of the United States” the “party bringing the action must name the head of the agency or department as this is the only proper party defendant.”) (collecting cases). Defendants are directed to file a letter by no later than Thursday, June 29, 2023, explaining whether any of the arguments briefed in the summary judgment motion apply to Defendant the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-FPS as well. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York June 22, 2023 \) HL

United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X MIANKANZE BAMBA, 19-CV-8646 (LJL) (VF) Plaintiff, ORDER -against-

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY-FPS, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge: The pending motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 76) appears to have been brought on behalf of only Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 77 at 1, 90 at 1. Yet, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-FPS still appears on the docket as a named defendant in this action. It is well-settled that the only proper defendant in a Title VII suit brought by a government employee is “the head of the department, agency, or unit.” See Vargas v. United States Postal Serv., No. 05-CV-4447 (BSJ), 2007 WL 9817927, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2007) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (c)); Correa v. Carnahan, No. 22-CV-10213 (ALC), 2022 WL 17805623, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022) (“Employment discrimination actions brought by government employees under Title VII . . . must be brought against the head of the agency in which the allegedly discriminatory acts occurred.”) (citation omitted); see also Williams v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 23-CV-2348 (LTS), 2023 WL 3728375, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2023) (“The proper defendant for [Title VII] claims brought by a current or former federal employee is the head of the relevant agency.”) (citation omitted); Drayton v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 654 F. Supp. 558, 562 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (“It is clear from the language of [Title VII] that suit must be brought against the head of the agency . . . An action may not be brought against the agency itself.”); Healy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 677 F. Supp. 1284, 1287 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (noting that “[iJn commencing a [Title VII] civil action against a department of the United States” the “party bringing the action must name the head of the agency or department as this is the only proper party defendant.”) (collecting cases). Defendants are directed to file a letter by no later than Thursday, June 29, 2023, explaining whether any of the arguments briefed in the summary judgment motion apply to Defendant the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-FPS as well. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York June 22, 2023 \) HL

United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bamba v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS-FPS), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bamba-v-us-department-of-homeland-security-dhs-fps-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack