Cipriano v. Winter

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 29, 2009
DocketCivil Action No. 2008-2035
StatusPublished

This text of Cipriano v. Winter (Cipriano v. Winter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cipriano v. Winter, (D.D.C. 2009).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) MENANDRO CIPRIANO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-2035 (JR) ) DONALD C. WINTER, ) Secretary of the Navy, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to

dismiss.

Plaintiff is a former employee of the United States Navy at

Subic Bay, Philippines, whose formal employment discrimination

claim was dismissed on the ground that he is an alien to whom

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as

amended, does not apply.1 See Compl., Attach. (June 3, 2008

Notice of Dismissal, DON 08-61581-00796) at 1-2. He alleges that

he is a dual citizen of the Philippines and of the United States

because he was born in the Philippine Islands when the Philippine

Islands were a United States territory. Compl. at 6. In this

1 The Navy also dismissed plaintiff’s claim of discrimination on the basis of reprisal, see Compl., Attach. (June 3, 2008 Notice of Dismissal) at 2, but he does not appear to challenge this decision here.

1 action, plaintiff asks the Court to “confirm[] [his] having been

born a US citizen” such that the United States Navy “allow[s]

[him] to have access under [Title VII].” Id. at 7.

In Licudine v. Winter, 603 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2009),

this Court held that a person who, like plaintiff, was born in

the Philippine Islands when the Philippines was a United States

territory is neither a citizen nor a national of United States

citizen. Id. at 135-36. Such a person, then, is an alien to

whom Title VII does not apply. Id.

The Court will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss. An

Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

JAMES ROBERTSON United States District Judge

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

Related

Licudine v. Winter
603 F. Supp. 2d 129 (District of Columbia, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cipriano v. Winter, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cipriano-v-winter-dcd-2009.