Alfash v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-02659
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Alfash v. Mayorkas, Judge Menendez granted dismissal of DHS, holding only Secretary Mayorkas was a proper defendant.
Mohamed Alfash’s claims against the United States Department of Homeland Security were dismissed with prejudice; Secretary Mayorkas remained the proper defendant under this order.
What happened
In Alfash v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Mohamed Alfash sued the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas over alleged workplace harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and disability-accommodation failures. He represented himself without a lawyer.
The Department of Homeland Security asked to be removed as a defendant, arguing that the department head was the only proper defendant under the employment laws Alfash invoked. Alfash did not oppose the motion or otherwise respond.
The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims against the Department of Homeland Security with prejudice, leaving Secretary Mayorkas as the proper defendant. Judge Menendez did not state in this order how the claims against Secretary Mayorkas would proceed.
The detailed version
- Alfash v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas · No. 0:22-cv-02659
- Katherine Menendez
- May 22, 2023
Background
Mohamed Alfash brought an employment-discrimination action on his own behalf without a lawyer against the United States Department of Homeland Security and Alejandro N. Mayorkas, identified as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in his official capacity. Alfash alleged that his employer, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, harassed and discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and failed to accommodate his disabilities.
The claims were brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The Department of Homeland Security moved to dismiss itself as a defendant, arguing that the agency head was the only proper defendant. Alfash did not oppose the motion or otherwise respond.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act provide that, in an action brought by a federal employee, the head of the department or agency is the proper defendant. The court further stated that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is generally construed consistently with Title VII, so the agency head is also the proper defendant for a federal employee’s age-discrimination claim.
Ruling
The court concluded that only Secretary Mayorkas was a proper defendant. It granted the Department of Homeland Security’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against the United States Department of Homeland Security with prejudice. The order did not state a disposition of Alfash’s claims against Secretary Mayorkas. Judge Katherine Menendez signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.