Anigbogu v. Mayorkas

Background

Michael C. Anigbogu worked as an Asylum Officer in San Francisco for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, a component of the Department of Homeland Security. He stated that he is African American, Black, of Nigerian origin, and 69 years old. In December 2016, he applied for a Senior Asylum Officer position but was not selected for an interview or for the position.

Anigbogu filed this case against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, identified in the opinion as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. He asserted nine employment-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including claims for hostile work environment and constructive discharge.

Motion to Dismiss

The court granted the motion to dismiss claims for hostile work environment under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as well as the constructive-discharge claim, because Anigbogu had not completed the required administrative process for those claims. Anigbogu conceded that he had not exhausted them. The court dismissed these claims with prejudice.

The court also granted the motion to dismiss Anigbogu's punitive-damages claims with prejudice. Anigbogu conceded that punitive damages were not available against a federal employer.

The court granted the request to strike Anigbogu's requests for an ADEA jury trial and for compensatory and liquidated damages. Anigbogu conceded that he was not entitled to those forms of relief for his ADEA claims against the federal government.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Anigbogu's attorney-fee claims because he was proceeding without a lawyer. The court did not add a prejudice designation to this ruling.

Motion for Leave to Amend

Anigbogu asked for permission to file an amended complaint so that it would reflect the rulings and concessions concerning the original complaint. Because more than 21 days had passed since Mayorkas served the motion to dismiss, Anigbogu needed either Mayorkas's consent or the court's permission to amend.

The court found good cause to allow amendment. It found no bad faith or improper delay, noted that Mayorkas did not oppose the request, and observed that the case remained at the pleading stage. The court also noted that Anigbogu had not previously sought leave to amend. The court granted Anigbogu's motion for leave to file an amended complaint and ordered him to file it as a separate docket entry by May 16, 2022. Mayorkas was ordered to file any response within 14 days after that filing.

Other Order and Disposition

The court continued the case-management conference from May 26, 2022, to June 16, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., and adjusted related deadlines. The order granted the motion to dismiss as described above, granted the motion for leave to amend, and continued the conference; it did not decide the merits of the remaining employment-discrimination claims.