De La Rosa v. New York City Department of Education, 1:21-cv-04051

Plaintiff Rosario DeLaRosa, age 65, has been an assistant principal at Gregorio Luperon High School since 2005; Principal Yecenia Delarosa (age 47) became principal in 2016.
DeLaRosa alleges a pattern of age-based mistreatment by Delarosa: insulting emails/letters, exclusion from meetings, and progressive removal of supervisory duties (including College Access for All, AP/PSAT responsibilities, and summer work).
DeLaRosa filed an SDHR complaint in April 2020 and this federal action on May 3, 2021; she is proceeding pro se. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court found that some ADEA/NYSHRL/NYCHRL disparate-treatment and retaliation claims survived (specifically exclusion from the program and denial of summer work; denial of summer work and an "Unsatisfactory" rating as retaliation), but dismissed the hostile work environment claim.
Procedurally: Plaintiff withdrew claims against the City; ADEA claims cannot proceed against an individual (Delarosa) and were dismissed; state-law claims against the DOE were dismissed for failure to comply with statutory notice requirements; surviving defendants must answer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disparate treatment (ADEA/NYSHRL/NYCHRL)	Exclusion from College Access for All and denial of summer work were age-motivated adverse actions	No materially adverse employment actions or insufficient inference of age-based intent	Survives as to exclusion and denial of summer work (these are adverse and permit inference of discriminatory intent)
Retaliation (ADEA/NYSHRL/NYCHRL)	Filing SDHR/federal suit led to denial of summer work and an Unsatisfactory rating	No causal link; timing largely too remote to infer retaliation	Survives as to actions occurring within three months of federal filing (denial of summer work and the Unsatisfactory rating); other allegations fail for lack of causation
Hostile work environment	Persistent insults, isolation, and removal of duties created a hostile, age-based workplace	Conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive nor clearly tied to age	Dismissed — allegations not objectively severe or pervasive and not tied to protected characteristic
Individual and DOE liability / procedural defenses	Sued DOE, City, and Principal Delarosa under federal and state law	ADEA bars individual liability; state claims require notice to sue DOE; plaintiff withdrew City claim	ADEA claims against Delarosa dismissed; state-law claims against DOE dismissed for failure to file required notice; City terminated from action

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (application of plausibility standard to factual allegations)
Lively v. WAFRA Inv. Advisory Grp., Inc., 6 F.4th 293 (2d Cir. 2021) (but-for causation and temporal-proximity limits in discrimination/retaliation claims)
Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) (what constitutes a materially adverse employment action)
Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (circumstances supporting inference of discriminatory intent)
Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2013) (retaliation claims require but-for causation)
Zoulas v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 400 F. Supp. 3d 25 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (adverse-action and per-session work loss analysis)
Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2002) (hostile work environment factors and standards)