Walker-Portillo v. Capgemini America, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-01633
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Walker-Portillo v. Capgemini, Judge Koeltl ordered service on six defendants and declined to identify the Jane Doe defendants.
Tanya Walker-Portillo, the six named defendants designated for service, and the two unidentified Jane Doe defendants.
What happened
Walker-Portillo v. Capgemini America, Inc. is a lawsuit by Tanya Walker-Portillo alleging employment discrimination based on race, color, gender, and disability under federal, New York State, and New York City laws.
Because Walker-Portillo was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront, the court directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve six named defendants. The court said she should request more time if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued.
The court did not issue an order to help identify the two Jane Doe defendants because the complaint did not allege discrimination by them and did not provide enough information to identify them. Judge John G. Koeltl also directed the Clerk to mail Walker-Portillo an information package.
The detailed version
- Walker-Portillo v. Capgemini America, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01633
- John Koeltl
- Mar. 12, 2024
Background
Tanya Walker-Portillo brought this lawsuit without a lawyer against Capgemini America, Inc.; Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company; Michael Doyle; Jeff Rupley; Sheryl Howard-Summerlin; Carrie Chargois; and two defendants identified as Jane Doe. She alleges employment discrimination based on race, color, gender, and disability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The court also treated the complaint as asserting claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
The court had previously allowed Walker-Portillo to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The order addressed service of the complaint and the unidentified Jane Doe defendants; it did not decide whether the discrimination claims were legally or factually valid.
Service on Named Defendants
Because Walker-Portillo was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court instructed the Clerk of Court to complete U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Capgemini America, Inc.; Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company; Michael Doyle; Jeff Rupley; Sheryl Howard-Summerlin; and Carrie Chargois.
The order states that if the complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Walker-Portillo should request an extension of time. It also requires her to notify the court in writing if her address changes and states that the action may be dismissed if she fails to do so.
Jane Doe Defendants
The court declined, at this time, to issue an order seeking the identities of the two Jane Doe defendants. It explained that Walker-Portillo made no allegations of employment discrimination against them and did not provide enough information for their attorney or agent to identify them.
Disposition
The court instructed the Clerk to issue summonses and arrange service through the U.S. Marshals Service for the six named defendants. It also directed the Clerk to mail Walker-Portillo an information package. The order did not dismiss the action or rule on the merits of the discrimination claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.