Cordero v. Police Department

Background

Elizabeth Sanchez Cordero, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged that her employer, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), discriminated against her based on her sex, national origin, disability, and age. The opinion notes that her complaint did not plead facts supporting sex- or national-origin-discrimination claims, although she raised those grounds in administrative proceedings. The court had previously granted her permission to proceed without paying the usual filing fees.

Claims Against the Police Department

The court dismissed Cordero’s claims against the defendant named as the “Police Department.” Applying the New York City Charter and cited precedent, the court held that a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued. The court therefore directed the Clerk to terminate the Police Department as a defendant.

Because Cordero’s complaint showed a clear intention to assert claims against the City of New York, the court added the City as a defendant under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City may later assert.

Service of Process

Because Cordero had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk to prepare a summons and a U.S. Marshals Service process form for the City of New York and send the necessary papers to the Marshals Service for service. The opinion states that service must occur within 90 days after the summons is issued, and that Cordero should request an extension if service is not completed within that period. It also directs her to notify the court in writing if her address changes and states that the action may be dismissed if she fails to do so.

Disposition

The court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the “Police Department,” added the City of New York as a defendant, terminated the Police Department as a defendant, and ordered preparation for service on the City. The order addressed the proper defendant and service process; it did not resolve the merits of Cordero’s discrimination claims.