Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 22, 2023

Bamba v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:19-cv-08646
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bamba v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security-FPS, Magistrate Judge Figueredo ordered defendants to explain whether summary-judgment arguments apply to DHS-FPS.

Who this affects

Miankanze Bamba, Alejandro Mayorkas, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-FPS; the order required the defendants to clarify whether their summary-judgment arguments applied to DHS-FPS.

What happened

In Bamba v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security-FPS, the court noted that the pending summary-judgment motion appeared to be filed only for Alejandro Mayorkas, while DHS-FPS remained a named defendant.

The court explained that, in a federal employee’s discrimination case under Title VII, the proper defendant is the head of the relevant department or agency, not the agency itself.

The court directed the defendants to file a letter by June 29, 2023, explaining whether any arguments in the summary-judgment motion also apply to DHS-FPS. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bamba v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · No. 1:19-cv-08646
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
June 22, 2023

Background

The court addressed an issue concerning a pending motion for summary judgment. The motion appeared to have been brought only on behalf of Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. However, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-FPS still appeared on the docket as a named defendant.

Legal standard noted by the court

The court stated that the only proper defendant in a Title VII employment-discrimination lawsuit brought by a federal government employee is the head of the relevant department, agency, or unit. The court cited decisions stating that such an action must be brought against the agency head rather than against the agency itself.

Order

The court directed the defendants to file a letter no later than June 29, 2023. The letter must explain whether any arguments made in the summary-judgment motion also apply to DHS-FPS. The order did not decide the pending summary-judgment motion.

Judge

The order was signed by Valerie Figueredo, United States Magistrate Judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.