Joseph v. Sephora
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-03848
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Joseph v. Sephora, Judge Oetken ordered U.S. Marshals service for the pro se disability-discrimination case but denied fee-free status for any appeal.
Daisy J. Joseph and Sephora; the order directs the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Sephora and affects Joseph’s ability to proceed without paying fees on appeal.
What happened
In Daisy J. Joseph v. Sephora, Joseph, representing herself, alleges that her employer discriminated against her because of a disability and retaliated against her under the Family and Medical Leave Act. She brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.
Because the court had allowed Joseph to proceed without paying filing fees, it ordered the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Sephora. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued and said Joseph should request more time if service is not completed by then.
Judge Oetken also directed the Clerk to mail Joseph an information package and warned that she must report any address change. The court denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, stating that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether Joseph’s discrimination or retaliation claims are valid.
The detailed version
- Joseph v. Sephora · No. 1:23-cv-03848
- James Oetken
- May 12, 2023
Background
Daisy J. Joseph brings this case without a lawyer against Sephora. She alleges that her employer discriminated against her because of her disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also alleges retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The court had previously granted Joseph permission to proceed without paying filing fees. This order concerns service of the lawsuit, not the merits of her allegations.
Service of Process
Because Joseph was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees, the court stated that she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Sephora. The Clerk of Court was instructed to complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form, issue a summons, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service.
The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summons is issued. If the complaint is not served within that period, Joseph should request an extension of time. The court also directed Joseph to notify the court in writing if her address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if she fails to do so.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk to mail Joseph an information package, complete the service form with Sephora’s address, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not resolve whether Sephora violated any disability-discrimination, retaliation, or other law.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.