Glover v. Grimaldi

Background

Tamara Glover, who is representing herself and paid the filing fees, sued Carolyn Grimaldi, Mindy Jeng, and “John Does 1-10,” described as unidentified members of a New York State Unified Court System Vaccination Review Committee. She sued the defendants in both their individual and official capacities and sought money damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.

The opinion says Glover appears to challenge employment discrimination and retaliation arising from her efforts to obtain a religious exemption from the Unified Court System’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. She asserted claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court also understood the complaint to assert additional employment discrimination and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law.

Unified Court System added as a defendant

Glover did not name the New York State Unified Court System, her employer, as a defendant. Instead, she named individual Unified Court System officials. The court explained that Title VII claims must be brought against the employer, not individual employees. Because the allegations concerned discrimination and retaliation related to Glover’s employment, the court directed the Clerk, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, to add the Unified Court System as a defendant. The addition was without prejudice to defenses the Unified Court System may assert.

Identification of the John Doe defendants

The court found that the complaint provided enough information for the Unified Court System to identify the unidentified committee members who allegedly denied Glover’s request for a religious exemption. It ordered the Attorney General of the State of New York, identified in the opinion as the attorney and agent for the Unified Court System, to determine the identities and service addresses of those defendants and provide the information to Glover and the court within 60 days of the order.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Glover must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order concerning summonses for the newly identified defendants.

Summonses and service

The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses for Grimaldi, Jeng, and the Unified Court System. Glover must serve each of those defendants with the summons and complaint within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If she does not serve them or request an extension within that period, the court may dismiss the claims against them under Rules 4 and 41 for failure to prosecute. The court also directed that a copy of the order and complaint be sent to the New York Attorney General.

Disposition

This was an order concerning adding a party, identifying unnamed defendants, issuing summonses, and continuing the case. The court did not decide whether Glover’s discrimination, retaliation, religious-freedom, or other claims were legally valid.