Harris v. NYC Human Resources Administration
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-02011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Harris v. NYC Human Resources Administration, Judge Broderick dismissed claims against the agency, added New York City, and ordered service on the defendants.
Mary L. Harris’s claims against the NYC Human Resources Administration were dismissed because the agency cannot be sued separately. The City of New York was added as a defendant, and the court ordered service on the City, Steven Banks, and Joyce Roberson-Steele.
What happened
Mary L. Harris, representing herself, alleged that her employer discriminated against her because of her age, sex, and disability under federal employment laws. The opinion does not decide whether those allegations are true.
The court dismissed Harris’s claims against the NYC Human Resources Administration because the agency cannot be sued as a separate entity. It directed the Clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant, without affecting defenses the City may raise, and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City, Steven Banks, and Joyce Roberson-Steele.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued, directed Harris to report address changes, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Harris v. NYC Human Resources Administration · No. 1:20-cv-02011
- John Cronan
- Apr. 7, 2020
Background
Mary L. Harris filed this action without a lawyer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. She alleged employment discrimination based on age, sex, and disability. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Claims Against the Human Resources Administration
The court dismissed Harris’s claims against the NYC Human Resources Administration because a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued separately under New York City Charter chapter 17, section 396. Because Harris clearly intended to assert claims against the City of New York, the court construed the complaint as making claims against the City and directed the Clerk to replace the Human Resources Administration with the City of New York in the caption. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City may assert.
Service of Process
Because Harris was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the time for service to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It directed the Clerk to prepare service forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the paperwork needed to serve the City of New York, Human Resources Administration Commissioner Steven Banks, and Brooklyn CASA Director Joyce Roberson-Steele.
The court also stated that Harris must notify the court in writing if her address changes and that the action could be dismissed if she fails to do so. It encouraged her to consent to receiving court notices electronically, but the opinion does not state that she consented.
Disposition
The court dismissed Harris’s claims against the NYC Human Resources Administration, added the City of New York as a defendant, and ordered steps to serve the City, Steven Banks, and Joyce Roberson-Steele. It certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Harris’s discrimination allegations.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.