2014 WL 3400462
E.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Bohnet, over 40, held a permanent teaching certificate and worked for District 13 since Jan 2005 in a non-tenure, leave-replacement Fourth Grade Inclusion Teacher position.
- For the 2006-07 school year Bohnet was a sixth-grade leave replacement; she applied for tenure-track positions in 2006 and 2007 but was not interviewed or hired.
- She alleges the District hired younger, under-40 applicants for tenure-track positions and preferred them over Bohnet, despite her qualifications.
- In fall 2008 Bohnet discussed not being hired for tenured roles with Zerillo, who told her she should expect a permanent substitute position at Wheeler Avenue; Huplonsky later hired Bohnet for a leave replacement.
- By mid-2010 Bohnet remained a per diem substitute after her Howell Road leave replacement ended; she alleged ongoing applications for tenure-track or leave positions were denied in favor of younger applicants; she filed this action asserting ADEA, §1983, and NYSHRL claims; defendants moved to dismiss and Bohnet moved to amend (PAC).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADEA discrimination plausibility | Bohnet asserts but-for age discrimination due to hiring of younger applicants. | PAC lacks specifics linking age to hiring decisions; no identifiable younger replacements or age-related conduct. | ADEA discrimination claim dismissed. |
| ADEA retaliation plausibility | Complaint shows protected activity (complaint about age bias) followed by adverse actions. | Six-month gap and lack of other facts show no causal link; no plausible retaliation. | ADEA retaliation claim dismissed. |
| NYSHRL claim against individuals | Individuals should be liable under NYSHRL for discriminatory actions. | Claims analyzed under same framework as ADEA; failures lead to dismissal. | NYSHRL claims against individual defendants dismissed. |
| Amendment futility | Proposed PAC adds factual detail, should be allowed to amend. | Amendment would be futile as claims would still fail under Rule 12(b)(6). | Motion to amend denied as futile. |
| Relation of ADEA to §1983 claims | §1983 theory mirrors ADEA discrimination/retaliation claims. | Analyses parallel ADEA; if ADEA claims fail, §1983 claims fail too. | §1983 claims fail for the same reasons as ADEA claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (mais pero-for causation required for ADEA discrimination)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible claim, not mere speculation)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (two-prong approach; well-pleaded facts needed for plausibility)
- Adams v. New York State Educ. Dep’t, 752 F.Supp.2d 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (discrimination claims require specificity about replacements/ages)
- Roginsky v. County of Suffolk, New York, 729 F.Supp.2d 561 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (discrimination claims require more than conclusory allegations of bias)
- Siani v. State Univ. of New York at Farmingdale, 7 F.Supp.3d 304 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (employer must be shown to consider age in decisions)
- Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free School Dist., 365 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2004) (reiterates ADEA/NYSHRL frameworks for discrimination)
- Kessler v. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Social Servs., 461 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2006) (retaliation framework under ADEA similar to Title VII)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (Gross bears on scope of NYHRL and ADEA; guiding context)
- Tyler v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 958 F.2d 1176 (2d Cir. 1992) (employment discrimination elements framework)