Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 29, 2025

DeJoy v. United States

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:24-cv-04814
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEmploymentCivil Rights
In one sentence

DeJoy v. United States: Judge Woods entered judgment dismissing most claims with prejudice, three Title VII claims without prejudice, and closing the case.

Who this affects

The plaintiff’s claims were dismissed: most with prejudice, and the Title VII claims involving three job postings without prejudice. The judgment also affects any attempted appeal by denying in forma pauperis status.

What happened

In Louis DeJoy, et al. v. United States, the court entered judgment based on its September 26, 2025 order. The judgment addressed claims under several federal and state laws.

The court dismissed with prejudice the claims under Sections 1981 and 1983, New York law, several veterans’ and civil-service laws, and unexhausted Title VII claims involving 58 job postings. It dismissed without prejudice the Title VII claims involving the remaining three job postings.

Judge Gregory Woods’s court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
DeJoy v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-04814
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Sept. 29, 2025

What the judgment did

The court entered judgment for the reasons stated in its September 26, 2025 order. The text provided here does not include that earlier order’s reasoning.

Claims dismissed with prejudice

The judgment states that the plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and New York state law were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the judgment bars those claims from being brought again in the same form. It also dismissed with prejudice the 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 further dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff’s unexhausted Title VII claims concerning 58 job postings. “Unexhausted” means the required administrative process had not been completed for those claims, according to the judgment.

Title VII claims dismissed without prejudice

The plaintiff’s Title VII claims concerning the remaining three job postings were dismissed without prejudice. That disposition does not bar refiling those claims solely because of this judgment, although the provided text does not state what requirements would apply to any refiling.

Appeal and case status

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status, which permits a person who cannot afford filing fees to proceed without paying them, for purposes of an appeal. The case was closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.