Case: Clayton v. Dejoy

2:24-cv-00759 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: Jan. 27, 2024

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case, brought on behalf of a putative class of approximately 1,200 non-white postal police officers (PPOs), concerns alleged racial discrimination in the provision of benefits to employees of the United States Postal Service. It was filed on January 27, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by, a PPO who had sustained severe injuries while on duty and was subsequently diagnosed with PTSD. The plaintiff sued Louis DeJoy, the USPS Postmaster General, and alle…

This case, brought on behalf of a putative class of approximately 1,200 non-white postal police officers (PPOs), concerns alleged racial discrimination in the provision of benefits to employees of the United States Postal Service. It was filed on January 27, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by, a PPO who had sustained severe injuries while on duty and was subsequently diagnosed with PTSD. The plaintiff sued Louis DeJoy, the USPS Postmaster General, and alleged disparate impact in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. She claimed that PPOs, who were predominantly Black and Hispanic, did not have access to the same counseling program as postal inspectors, who were predominantly white. Represented by private attorneys, Plaintiff sought class certification, a permanent injunction against discriminatory practices, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.

In July 2024, the parties asked that the case be stayed pending policy changes at the USPS that may resolve the issue. On July 29, 2024, Judge Marshall issued an order staying the case until January 2025. On January 28, 2025, Judge Marshall issued yet another order, extending the stay until May 2025. 

As of September 2025, the case is stayed but ongoing.

Summary Authors

Erin Lichtenstein (4/19/2025)

Ben Hefter (9/1/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68199681/parties/adrianne-clayton-v-louis-dejoy/


Judge(s)

Marshall, Consuelo Bland (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Osborn, Daniel A (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Korevec, John Christopher (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
1

2:24-cv-00759

Complaint

Jan. 27, 2024

Jan. 27, 2024

Complaint
18

2:24-cv-00759

Stipulation to Stay Case

July 26, 2024

July 26, 2024

Pleading / Motion / Brief
19

2:24-cv-00759

Order Re Stipulation to Stay Case [18]

July 29, 2024

July 29, 2024

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68199681/adrianne-clayton-v-louis-dejoy/

Last updated April 5, 2026, 4:19 a.m.

ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Jan. 27, 2024

COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-36807811 - Fee: $405, filed by Plaintiff Adrianne Clayton. (Attorney Daniel A Osborn added to party Adrianne Clayton(pty:pla))(Osborn, Daniel) (Entered: 01/27/2024)

Clearinghouse
2 Jan. 27, 2024

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Adrianne Clayton. (Osborn, Daniel) (Entered: 01/27/2024)

RECAP
3 Jan. 27, 2024

Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by plaintiff Adrianne Clayton. (Osborn, Daniel) (Entered: 01/27/2024)

RECAP
4 Jan. 27, 2024

NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Adrianne Clayton, (Osborn, Daniel) (Entered: 01/27/2024)

RECAP
5 Jan. 29, 2024

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and Magistrate Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff. (et) (Entered: 01/29/2024)

RECAP
6 Jan. 29, 2024

Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et) (Entered: 01/29/2024)

RECAP
7 Jan. 29, 2024

60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to Defendant Louise Dejoy. (et) (Entered: 01/29/2024)

RECAP
8 Feb. 2, 2024

STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. It controls this case and may differ in some respects from the Local Rules. See order for details. (ys) (Entered: 02/02/2024)

RECAP
9 Feb. 26, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Adrianne Clayton, upon Defendant Louise Dejoy served on 2/16/2024, answer due 4/16/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to R. Childress, US Attorneys Office Central District of California. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by unspecified means. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to United States Postal Service. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. (Osborn, Daniel) (Entered: 02/26/2024)

RECAP
10 April 4, 2024

SERVICE UNDER FRCP 5(b)(2)(D) Executed by Plaintiff Adrianne Clayton, upon Defendant Louise Dejoy served on 3/22/2024, answer due 4/22/2024. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the Clerks Office in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reservice of Summons, Complaint, and Documents to US Attorney Central District and US Attorney General (Osborn, Daniel) (Entered: 04/04/2024)

RECAP
11 April 4, 2024

SERVICE UNDER FRCP 5(b)(2)(D) Executed by Plaintiff Adrianne Clayton, upon Defendant Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the Clerks Office in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reservice of Summons, Complaint, and Documents to US Attorney Central District and US Attorney General (Osborn, Daniel) (Entered: 04/04/2024)

RECAP
12 April 15, 2024

STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Louise Dejoy answer now due 6/12/2024, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by defendant Louise Dejoy.(Attorney John Christopher Korevec added to party Louise Dejoy(pty:dft))(Korevec, John) (Entered: 04/15/2024)

RECAP
13 April 15, 2024

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Matthew J Smock counsel for Defendant Louise Dejoy. Adding Matthew J. Smock as counsel of record for Louise Dejoy for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Louise Dejoy. (Attorney Matthew J Smock added to party Louise Dejoy(pty:dft))(Smock, Matthew) (Entered: 04/15/2024)

RECAP
14 June 11, 2024

STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to 6/26/2024 re Stipulation Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less), 12, Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by defendant Louise Dejoy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Korevec, John) (Entered: 06/11/2024)

RECAP
15 June 12, 2024

ORDER, 14 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, re Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer (More than 30 days): The Court, having considered the parties Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint, and good cause appearing therefore, HEREBY ORDERS that Defendants deadline to respond to the Complaint is extended by fourteen (14) days, to June 26, 2024. (shb) (Entered: 06/12/2024)

RECAP
16 June 24, 2024

Third STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by Defendant Louise Dejoy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smock, Matthew) (Entered: 06/24/2024)

RECAP
17 June 25, 2024

ORDER UPON STIPULATION EXTENDS DEFENDANTS DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT TO JULY 26, 2024 16 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (lc) (Entered: 06/26/2024)

RECAP
18 July 26, 2024

STIPULATION to Stay Case pending Finalization of Anticipated Policy Changes filed by defendant Louise Dejoy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Korevec, John) (Entered: 07/26/2024)

Clearinghouse
19 July 29, 2024

ORDER STAYING CASE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court, having considered the parties Stipulation to Stay Case, and good cause appearing therefore, HEREBY ORDERS that the case will be stayed until January 27, 2025. Defendants deadline to respond to the Complaint is likewise extended to January 27, 2025. The parties are ordered to file a status report in this case no later than October 25, 2024. (shb) (Entered: 07/30/2024)

Clearinghouse
20 Oct. 24, 2024

STATUS REPORT Joint filed by Defendant Louise Dejoy. (Smock, Matthew) (Entered: 10/24/2024)

RECAP
21 Jan. 24, 2025

STIPULATION to Stay Case pending Policy Update filed by Defendant Louise Dejoy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smock, Matthew) (Entered: 01/24/2025)

RECAP
22 Jan. 28, 2025

ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, re Stipulation to Stay Case 21 : The Court, having considered the parties Stipulation to Extend Stay, and good cause appearing therefore, HEREBY ORDERS that the stay in this case is extended until May 30, 2025. Defendants deadline to respond to the Complaint is extended to May 30, 2025. (shb) (Entered: 01/28/2025)

RECAP
23 April 1, 2025

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Matthew J Smock counsel for Defendant Louise Dejoy. Matthew J. Smock is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Louise Dejoy. (Smock, Matthew) (Entered: 04/01/2025)

RECAP
24 May 22, 2025

Order

RECAP
25 May 23, 2025

Order

RECAP
26 Aug. 19, 2025

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)

RECAP
27 Aug. 22, 2025

Order

RECAP
28 Aug. 26, 2025

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held AND ~Util - Set/Reset Hearings

RECAP
Aug. 27, 2025

Generic Text Only Entry

30 Aug. 29, 2025

Order

RECAP
31 Sept. 3, 2025

For Order

RECAP
32 Sept. 4, 2025

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)

RECAP
33 Sept. 15, 2025

Status Conference - optional html form AND ~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines

RECAP
34 Sept. 19, 2025

IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Plaintiff's counsel is hereby ordered to show cause no later than September 22, 2025 as to why he did not appear remotely as requested, why he should be permitted to proceed on this case when he is currently not admitted to practice law in the State of California; and why sanctions should not be imposed. See document for further information. (es)

RECAP
35 Sept. 19, 2025

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held AND ~Util - Set/Clear Flags

RECAP
36 Sept. 22, 2025

Response

RECAP
37 Oct. 27, 2025

Dismiss Case

RECAP
38 Nov. 17, 2025

Continue

RECAP
39 Nov. 20, 2025

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held AND ~Util - Set/Reset Motion Hearing and R&R Deadlines AND ~Util - Terminate Hearings

RECAP
40 Dec. 16, 2025

Response in Opposition to Motion

RECAP
41 Jan. 6, 2026

Reply (Motion related)

RECAP
42 Jan. 13, 2026

Order

RECAP
Jan. 15, 2026

Generic Text Only Entry

Case Details

State / Territory:

California

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 27, 2024

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

One named plaintiff on behalf of a putative class of: “all current and former non-white [postal police officers] employed by the Postal Service between March 24, 2008 and the date of the resolution of this Complaint”

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Pending

Defendants

Federal

United States Postal Service

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Other Dockets:

Central District of California 2:24-cv-00759

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Granted:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Counseling

Discrimination Area:

Pay / Benefits

Discrimination Basis:

Race discrimination

Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):

Hispanic

Affected Race(s):

Black

Medical/Mental Health Care:

Mental health care, general

Recommended Citation