AlSariaa v. Tempositions, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-02451
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In AlSariaa v. Tempositions, Judge Ramos consolidated two related employment-discrimination cases after the parties agreed.
Noora AlSariaa, TemPositions, Inc. “School Professionals,” and New York Junior for Tennis & Learning—Public School 215; the order affects the handling of the two related cases by consolidating them.
What happened
In AlSariaa v. Tempositions, Inc., Noora AlSariaa sued TemPositions, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She later brought a related case against New York Junior for Tennis & Learning—Public School 215, alleging violations of Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law.
At a December 20, 2024 conference, the parties agreed to combine the two cases because they involved common legal and factual issues. Combining the cases does not eliminate their separate identities.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to consolidate the cases. Judge Edgardo Ramos said that the parties’ agreement, fairness, and efficient use of court resources supported consolidation.
The detailed version
- AlSariaa v. Tempositions, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02451
- Edgardo Ramos
- Dec. 20, 2024
Background
Noora AlSariaa brought the first action against TemPositions, Inc. “School Professionals,” alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The opinion states that the complaint was later amended.
AlSariaa brought a related action against New York Junior for Tennis & Learning—Public School 215, alleging employment discrimination under Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion states that this complaint was also amended.
Consolidation
At a December 20, 2024 conference, the parties consented to consolidation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, a district court may consolidate civil actions pending in the same court when they involve a common question of law or fact. Consolidation joins the cases for handling while preserving each action’s independent character.
Ruling
The court directed the Clerk of Court to consolidate the two cases. It relied on the parties’ consent, the common legal and factual issues, fairness, and judicial efficiency. The order did not decide whether AlSariaa or either defendant was correct on the underlying employment-discrimination claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.