Arnold v. Dejoy
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-04814
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Arnold v. DeJoy, Judge Woods adopted the unchallenged recommendation, granting dismissal and partial summary judgment while allowing amendment of three Title VII claims.
Sheon Arnold’s employment-discrimination claims were narrowed substantially: claims under several statutes were dismissed with prejudice, 58 Title VII claims were resolved against him on summary judgment, and three Title VII claims could be repleaded within 30 days. The defendants obtained dismissal of the claims covered by the order.
What happened
In Arnold v. DeJoy, Sheon Arnold sued Louis DeJoy and other defendants over alleged employment discrimination under Title VII and other laws. A magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants’ motions, and no party objected within the required time.
The court adopted that recommendation after finding no clear error. It granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety, dismissed Arnold’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and New York law with prejudice and without leave to amend, and did the same for claims under several veterans’ employment statutes and an executive order. It also granted partial summary judgment on the 58 Title VII claims that Arnold had not timely pursued through administrative procedures. The Title VII claims concerning three remaining job postings were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend within 30 days.
Judge Gregory H. Woods directed that judgment be entered for the defendants on the unexhausted Title VII claims. He stated that failing to file an amended complaint within 30 days would lead to judgment for the defendants and dismissal of the action, and denied fee-free appeal status because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Arnold v. Dejoy · No. 1:24-cv-04814
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 21, 2025
Background
Sheon Arnold brought employment-discrimination claims against Louis DeJoy and other defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and sought partial summary judgment under Rule 56. Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s authority to hear a claim, Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and summary judgment asks whether a claim can proceed based on the undisputed record.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended granting the defendants’ motions. The recommendation concluded that Arnold had applied for only 61 of the 98 listed positions and had failed to complete the required administrative process on time for 58 of those 61 applications. It also concluded that Arnold’s Title VII claims did not adequately state a claim because he had not alleged direct evidence of discrimination; that the New York-law, § 1981, and § 1983 claims did not apply to federal employers; and that the remaining statutes cited by Arnold did not provide a private right to sue.
District Court’s Review
No party filed an objection to the recommendation within 14 days. Judge Woods therefore reviewed it for clear error, found none, and accepted and adopted it in its entirety.
Rulings
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. It dismissed Arnold’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and New York state law with prejudice and without leave to amend. It also dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend Arnold’s claims under the Veterans’ Preference Act, the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act, the Jobs for Veterans Act, the Civil Service Reform Act, and Executive Order 11521.
The court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Arnold’s unexhausted Title VII claims concerning 58 job postings, with prejudice and without leave to amend. It dismissed Arnold’s Title VII claims concerning the three remaining job postings without prejudice, with leave to amend. Any amended complaint had to be filed within 30 days of the order.
The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants on the unexhausted Title VII claims and stated that, if Arnold did not file an amended complaint within the allowed period, the court would direct entry of judgment for the defendants and dismiss the action. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.