Guevara v. NYC Human Resources Administration
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-09646
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Guevara v. NYC Human Resources Administration, Judge Woods dismissed claims against HRA, added New York City, and ordered service on the listed defendants.
Doreen Guevara’s claims against the New York City Human Resources Administration were dismissed, while the City of New York and the four named individual defendants remained designated for service. The order did not resolve the underlying discrimination claims.
What happened
In Doreen Guevara v. NYC Human Resources Administration, Doreen Guevara, representing herself, alleged that her employer discriminated against her because of her disability and age under federal, state, and city laws.
The court dismissed Guevara’s claims against the New York City Human Resources Administration because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued. Because Guevara intended to sue the City, the court directed the clerk to replace HRA with the City of New York, while leaving the City free to raise defenses. The court also ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City and the four individual defendants named in the order.
Judge Gregory H. Woods extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued and directed the clerk to issue the summonses and prepare the required service forms. The order did not decide whether Guevara’s discrimination claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Guevara v. NYC Human Resources Administration · No. 1:21-cv-09646
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 8, 2021
Background
Doreen Guevara brought the action without a lawyer. She alleged that her employer discriminated against her based on disability and age, invoking the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court had previously granted her permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
Screening of the Claims Against HRA
Because Guevara was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to review the complaint and dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court dismissed Guevara’s claims against the New York City Human Resources Administration under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), concluding that a New York City agency is not an entity that can generally be sued.
The court nevertheless determined that Guevara clearly intended to bring claims against the City of New York. It therefore directed the clerk to amend the case caption by replacing HRA with the City of New York. The amendment was stated to be without prejudice to any defenses the City might assert. The opinion did not decide the merits of Guevara’s disability- or age-discrimination allegations.
Service of Process
Because Guevara was authorized to proceed without paying filing fees, 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, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed.
The clerk was directed to issue summonses, complete the required service forms, and deliver the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on the City of New York, Steven Banks, Samuel Salnauve, Rita Campbell, and Olivia Holly. The court also directed Guevara to notify the court in writing if her address changes and stated that the action could be dismissed if she failed to do so.
Disposition
The court dismissed Guevara’s claims against HRA, directed the clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant, and ordered preparation for service on the City and the four individual defendants. Judge Gregory H. Woods did not rule on whether the alleged discrimination occurred or whether Guevara would ultimately prevail.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.