Elizabeth Sullivan v. Louis DeJoy, et al.

D. Delaware

Elizabeth Sullivan v. Louis DeJoy, et al.

DecidedNovember 10, 2025

Docket1:23-cv-01377

StatusUnknown

This text of Elizabeth Sullivan v. Louis DeJoy, et al. (Elizabeth Sullivan v. Louis DeJoy, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elizabeth Sullivan v. Louis DeJoy, et al., (D. Del. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ELIZABETH SULLIVAN, ) Plaintiff, V. Civ. No. 23-1377-CFC LOUIS DEJOY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER AT WILMINGTON, on this 10thday of November 2025, having reviewed Plaintiff Elizabeth Sullivan’s pro se motion for leave to file third amended complaint (D.I. 24), WHEREAS Plaintiff argues that equitable tolling applies in this case because Plaintiff did not know that an allegedly falsified SF-50 form had been placed in her employee file upon termination until an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation was completed on October 5, 2023 (see id. at 3); WHEREAS, assuming, without finding, Plaintiff's allegations regarding the falsified SF-50 form to be true, without more, these allegations do not suggest that Plaintiff was discharged, or otherwise discriminated against, because of her “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), as is required to state a Title VII claim;

WHEREAS, additionally, Plaintiff nowhere alleges that she subsequently exhausted administrative remedies regarding any Title VII claim related to the

allegedly falsified SF-50 form; WHEREAS, as this Court has previously stated, “federal employees must exhaust Title VII administrative remedies before filing suit against a federal employer,” Freed v. Consol. Rail Corp., 201 F.3d 188, 192 (3d Cir. 2000); and

WHEREAS Plaintiff has been granted multiple opportunities to cure deficiencies in her employment discrimination claims, and to date, no pleading has stated a claim that passes screening; THEREFORE, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (D.I. 24) is GRANTED in that this Court accepts Plaintiffs third amended complaint as the operative pleading in this case; It is FURTHER ORDERED that the third amended complaint (D.I. 24) is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which this Court may grant relief; and It is FINALLY ORDERED this the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. AE Lunt) Chief Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ELIZABETH SULLIVAN, ) Plaintiff, V. Civ. No. 23-1377-CFC LOUIS DEJOY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER AT WILMINGTON, on this 10thday of November 2025, having reviewed Plaintiff Elizabeth Sullivan’s pro se motion for leave to file third amended complaint (D.I. 24), WHEREAS Plaintiff argues that equitable tolling applies in this case because Plaintiff did not know that an allegedly falsified SF-50 form had been placed in her employee file upon termination until an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation was completed on October 5, 2023 (see id. at 3); WHEREAS, assuming, without finding, Plaintiff's allegations regarding the falsified SF-50 form to be true, without more, these allegations do not suggest that Plaintiff was discharged, or otherwise discriminated against, because of her “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), as is required to state a Title VII claim;

WHEREAS, additionally, Plaintiff nowhere alleges that she subsequently exhausted administrative remedies regarding any Title VII claim related to the

allegedly falsified SF-50 form; WHEREAS, as this Court has previously stated, “federal employees must exhaust Title VII administrative remedies before filing suit against a federal employer,” Freed v. Consol. Rail Corp., 201 F.3d 188, 192 (3d Cir. 2000); and

WHEREAS Plaintiff has been granted multiple opportunities to cure deficiencies in her employment discrimination claims, and to date, no pleading has stated a claim that passes screening; THEREFORE, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (D.I. 24) is GRANTED in that this Court accepts Plaintiffs third amended complaint as the operative pleading in this case; It is FURTHER ORDERED that the third amended complaint (D.I. 24) is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which this Court may grant relief; and It is FINALLY ORDERED this the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. AE Lunt) Chief Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Elizabeth Sullivan v. Louis DeJoy, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elizabeth-sullivan-v-louis-dejoy-et-al-ded-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack