Willis v. New York City Department of Homeless Services
- Sarah Cave
- 1:24-cv-00735
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Willis v. City of New York, Judge Cave denied Willis’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice because discovery had not begun.
Rodney Willis and the defendants—the City of New York, Kevin Perdomo, and Denise Turner. Willis’s summary-judgment motion was denied for now, but the order allows him to renew it after discovery.
What happened
Rodney Willis sued the City of New York, Kevin Perdomo, and Denise Turner, alleging discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation. The opinion says he filed the case against the City of New York’s Department of Homeless Services, while the case caption names the City of New York.
Willis asked the court to grant summary judgment, which would decide the case without a trial. The court noted that the parties had not yet begun formal information-gathering, so the defendants had not had a sufficient opportunity to obtain information needed to respond to the motion.
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied Willis’s motion without prejudice as premature. This means the motion was denied for now, and Willis may renew it after discovery under a schedule to be set at the upcoming initial case-management conference; the court did not decide the underlying discrimination, hostile-work-environment, or retaliation claims.
The detailed version
- Willis v. New York City Department of Homeless Services · No. 1:24-cv-00735
- Sarah Cave
- Feb. 12, 2025
Background
Rodney Willis, representing himself, sued the City of New York, Kevin Perdomo, and Denise Turner. The opinion states that he alleged discrimination based on race, color, sex, and age; a hostile work environment; and retaliation. The opinion says the action was filed against the City of New York’s Department of Homeless Services, although the caption identifies the City of New York as a defendant.
The court had previously dismissed Willis’s original complaint without prejudice because it violated the federal pleading rules requiring a clear and organized statement of the claims. Willis then filed an amended complaint. The defendants answered, and the court scheduled an initial case-management conference for March 3, 2025.
Motion and ruling
Willis filed a motion for summary judgment, a request for the court to decide a claim without a trial when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed. The parties had not yet begun formal discovery, the process through which parties obtain information and evidence from one another. The court explained that a party opposing summary judgment must have an opportunity to obtain information essential to its opposition.
The court therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Willis’s motion as premature. The order states that Willis may renew a summary-judgment motion on an appropriate date after discovery, once the court sets a discovery schedule. The court did not decide whether Willis’s discrimination, hostile-work-environment, or retaliation allegations were legally or factually valid. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion and mail Willis a copy of the order.
Other procedural history
The opinion notes that the court had previously denied an earlier pre-discovery summary-judgment motion as premature on the same basis. It also reminded Willis to meet and confer with the defendants and file a proposed case-management plan before the scheduled conference.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.