Glover v. Grimaldi

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 16, 2023·No. 7:23-cv-05019·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TAMARA GLOVER, Plaintiff, -against- No. 23-CV-5019 CAROLYN GRIMALDI, ESQ.; MINDY ORDER OF SERVICE JENG; JOHN DOES 1-10, currently unknown Committee Members, Defendants. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Tamara Glover, of Middletown, New York, who is proceeding pro se, has paid the fees to commence this action. She asserts claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff appears to assert claims of employment discrimination and retaliation arising from her employment with the New York State Unified Court System (“UCS”). Plaintiff sues: (1) Carolyn Grimaldi, Director of Human Resources for the New York State Office of Court Administration; (2) Mindy Jeng, an attorney employed by the New York State Office of Court Administration; and (3) “John Does 1-10 [who] are currently unknown Committee Members who purportedly rejected [Plaintiff’s] request for a religious exemption to [a] COVID-19 vaccination requirement.” (Compl. 2 (Dkt. No. 1).) She sues the defendants in their individual and official capacities, and seeks damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. The Court construes the complaint as asserting additional claims of employment

discrimination and retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law. For the following reasons, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to add, under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the UCS as a defendant in this action. The Court also directs the Attorney General of the State of New York to provide to Plaintiff and the Court the identities and service addresses of the unidentified “John Doe” defendants. The Court further directs the Clerk of Court to issues summonses as to Defendants Grimaldi, Jeng, and the UCS. DISCUSSION

A. UCS “Title VII does not impose liability on individuals. . . .” Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127, 169 (2d Cir. 2012). “Instead, the only proper defendant in a Title VII claim is the plaintiff’s employer.” Chibuzor v. Corwin, No. 20-CV-9643, 2020 WL 6905304, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Farmer v. Fzoad.com Enters. Inc., No. 17- CV-9300, 2020 WL 6530787, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2020), report & recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 5569581 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2020). Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court, on its own motion, “may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; see also Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich, Ltd., 118 F. Supp. 3d 591, 618-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (Rule 21 “afford[s] courts discretion to shape litigation in the interests of efficiency and justice.”). Under this rule, courts have added an entity as a defendant in an action,

though that entity is not named as a defendant in the complaint, because it is mentioned “throughout the body of the [c]omplaint” as involved in the underlying alleged events. George v. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Corr., No. 20-CV-1723, 2020 WL 1922691, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2020); see also Adams v. NYC Dep’t of Corrs., No. 19-CV-5009, 2019 WL 2544249, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2019). Plaintiff does not name the UCS, her employer, as a defendant, only individual UCS officials. She does seem to allege, however, that she was discriminated against and retaliated against with regard to her employment as a result of her efforts to seek a religious exemption to an employer-imposed COVID-19-vaccine mandate. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and these allegations, the Court understands Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting claims under Title VII against the UCS. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to add, under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the UCS as a defendant in this action. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses the UCS may wish to assert.

B. Unidentified “John Doe” defendants Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit the UCS to identify the unidentified “John Doe” defendants. They are members of a UCS Vaccination Review Committee who, along with Defendants Grimaldi and Jeng, denied Plaintiff’s request for a religious exemption to the UCS-imposed COVID-19-vaccine mandate. It is therefore ordered that the Attorney General of the State of New York, who is the attorney for and agent of the UCS, must ascertain the identity of each of the unidentified “John Doe” defendants whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where each of those defendants may be served. The Attorney General must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within 60 days of the date of this order.

Within 30 days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified defendants. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. An amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to issue summonses as to the newly identified defendants. CONCLUSION The Court directs the Clerk of Court to add the New York State Unified Court System as a defendant in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to issue summonses as to Defendants Grimaldi, Jeng, and the New York State Unified Court System. Plaintiff is directed to serve the summonses and the complaint on each of those defendants within 90 days of the issuance of the summonses.1 If within those 90 days, Plaintiff has not either served those defendants or

requested an extension of time to do so, the Court may dismiss the claims against those defendants under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. The Court further directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order and the complaint to the Attorney General of the State of New York at 28 Liberty Street, 16th Floor, New York, New York 10005. An amended complaint form is attached to this order. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 16, 2023 White Plains, New York

KENNETH M. KARAS United States District Judge

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

Glover v. Grimaldi, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Glover v. Grimaldi (Glover v. Grimaldi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lore v. City of Syracuse
670 F.3d 127 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.
118 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. New York, 2015)