UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

KAREN LENTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-10975

TIMOTHY BRUCE, CHARLOTTE GAINES,

RICHARD WORTH,

Defendants.

/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ “MOTION TO DISMISS”

Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by the United States on

behalf of Defendants Timothy Bruce, Charlotte Gaines, and Richard Worth on June 23,

2009. On March 16, 2009, Plaintiff Karen Lenton filed a pro se complaint pursuant to

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, alleging various instances of

discrimination by her supervisor while she was employed with the United States Postal

Service. Plaintiff, however, has filed no brief in response to Defendants’ motion, and

the time for response has passed. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). 

In its motion, Defendants argue that the court should dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint

because it does not name the proper defendant as required by statute for Plaintiff to

bring her suit. (Defs.’ Mot. at 7.) Title VII requires that “the head of the department,

agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant” in suits brought under it. 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). The Sixth Circuit has also explained that § 2000e-16(c)

“‘mandates who may be a proper defendant in civil actions brought by federal

employees to enforce rights under Title VII,’” and that failure to follow the statute’s

requirements will result in dismissal. Mulhall v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 543, 550 (6th Cir.

2:09-cv-10975-RHC-VMM Doc # 8 Filed 07/22/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 201
2

2002) (quoting Hancock v. Egger, 848 F.2d 87, 88 (6th Cir. 1988)). Under the statute

and the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit, the proper defendant in this case is the head of

the United States Postal Service, the Postmaster General. Stiles v. Frank, Nos. 91-

5454, 91-5455, 91-5648, 1992 WL 188111 (6th Cir. Aug. 6, 1992) (finding that the only

proper defendant in an employment discrimination action against a federal agency is the

Postmaster General when the federal agency at issue is the United States Postal

Service). Plaintiff named three Defendants, but did not include the Postmaster General

as a defendant in her complaint, and the court will therefore dismiss her suit. See

Hancock, 848 F.2d at 88 (“The proper defendant was not named in this action. 

Adherence to the statute’s requirements is mandatory, and we are neither authorized

nor inclined to ignore its mandate.”). In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission notified Plaintiff that she must name the proper defendant in any federal

action and that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the action. (Defs.’ Mot. Ex.

3.) Because Plaintiff has not named the proper defendant to this action, the court will

grant Defendants’ unopposed motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. See Mulhall,

287 F.3d at 550. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 7] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Karen Lenton’s complaint [Dkt. # 1] is

DISMISSED. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 22, 2009

2:09-cv-10975-RHC-VMM Doc # 8 Filed 07/22/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 202
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-10975.LENTON.Mot.Dismiss.Improper.Defendants.ljd.wpd 3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, July 22, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-10975-RHC-VMM Doc # 8 Filed 07/22/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 203