Noel v. Neighborhood Defender Service
Patrice Noel v. Neighborhood Defender Service, Inc.; Zainab Akbar; Carolyn Klemens; Danté Browne; Matthew Knecht; Shannon Anglero; Piyali Basak; Jacob Schneider; Amy Armstrong; Myranda Mendez; Roxanna Gutierrez; Rick Jones
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-06995
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Noel v. Neighborhood Defender Service, Judge Vyskocil ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
Patrice Noel, Neighborhood Defender Service, Inc., the individual defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Patrice Noel v. Neighborhood Defender Service, Inc., Patrice Noel alleges that her employer discriminated against her because of her race, sex, and disability. She brings claims under federal, New York State, and New York City laws.
The court had previously allowed Noel to proceed without prepaying court fees. Because of that permission, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Neighborhood Defender Service, Inc., and the individual defendants.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil did not decide whether Noel's discrimination claims are valid. The order addresses service of the lawsuit and directs Noel to request more time if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued.
The detailed version
- Noel v. Neighborhood Defender Service · No. 1:25-cv-06995
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 20, 2025
Background
Patrice Noel, who is representing herself, brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleges that Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem discriminated against her because of her race, sex, and disability.
The court had granted Noel permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. Under the federal service rules described in the order, a plaintiff with that status may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants.
Court’s action
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for each defendant, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with each defendant’s address, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Noel an information package.
The court stated that service must be completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Noel should request an extension of time. The order also requires Noel to notify the court in writing if her address changes and states that the court may dismiss the action if she fails to do so.
What the order did not decide
The order did not decide the merits of Noel’s discrimination allegations or rule on whether any defendant violated the laws she cited. It is an order arranging service of the complaint.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.