Faughnan v. Nassau Health Care Corporation, 2:19-cv-03171

Background

Plaintiff Elizabeth Faughnan, a 51-year-old attorney, worked for Nassau Health Care Corporation (NHCC) from 2013 until her termination on February 20, 2018; she served as Deputy Executive Director (2013–2014) and then Assistant NHCC Counsel (2014–2018) at a $160,000 salary.
Allegations: disparate treatment based on age and sex (e.g., asked to relinquish a prior title to accommodate a male hire; not allowed to keep an outside practice while a male was; being yelled at; references to a "Men’s Club"); severance-related complaints (not permitted to edit her severance letter while some male colleagues allegedly were; not credited for certain prior county service affecting longevity/severance pay).
Plaintiff alleges age discrimination from termination and replacement by a younger (28-year-old) female hired in December 2018 at a substantially lower salary; also alleges pay disparity vis-à-vis several male attorneys.
Procedural history: EEOC charge filed December 17, 2018; right-to-sue letter issued February 28, 2019; suit filed May 28, 2019. Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and as time‑barred.
District court accepted allegations as true but concluded many acts were time‑barred, the continuing‑violation theory was not pleaded, and the complaint failed to plausibly plead age, sex, hostile‑work‑environment, or Equal Pay Act claims; the complaint was dismissed in full.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / Continuing‑violation	Faughnan invokes the continuing‑violation doctrine to bring pre‑300‑day incidents into the EEOC filing period.	Only incidents within 300 days of EEOC charge are timely; earlier acts are time‑barred absent a properly pleaded ongoing policy and a timely act in furtherance.	Dismissal: plaintiff failed to plausibly allege an ongoing discriminatory policy or timely related acts; most allegations pre‑date the 300‑day window and are time‑barred.
ADEA (age discrimination via termination/replacement)	Termination and later hiring of a much younger attorney shows age animus.	Replacement by a younger hire, without more, does not plausibly show age was the but‑for cause.	Dismissal: termination is an adverse action but plaintiff failed to allege facts showing age was the but‑for cause (no comparator duties, no age‑related remarks, no pretext).
Title VII / Gender discrimination (severance edits, service credit)	Denial of opportunity to edit severance and denial of county service credit show gender bias; past comments/meetings support inference.	The severance‑editing denial and service‑credit dispute lack facts showing gender motive; many remarks/incidents are untimely or isolated.	Dismissal: allegations do not plausibly support that adverse actions were motivated by sex; workplace slights and isolated comments insufficient.
Hostile work environment (Title VII/NYSHRL)	Office comments ("Men’s Club"), exclusion from a meeting, and other slights created a hostile environment.	Conduct was isolated/offhand and not sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable.	Dismissal: incidents were isolated and not objectively severe or pervasive; fail to state a hostile‑work‑environment claim.
Equal Pay Act / NY EPL (pay disparity)	Male colleagues (listed by name/title) were paid more for substantially equal work.	Plaintiff lacks factual allegations about actual job duties/responsibilities to show work was substantially equal; mere titles/salaries insufficient.	Dismissal: plaintiff failed to identify valid comparators with factual job‑content allegations; equal‑pay claims dismissed.

Key Cases Cited

Quinn v. Green Tree Credit Corp., 159 F.3d 759 (2d Cir. 1998) (continuing‑violation doctrine; 300‑day EEOC filing rule)
Harris v. City of New York, 186 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 1999) (continuing‑violation requires ongoing policy plus a timely act)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
E.E.O.C. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 768 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2014) (EPA claims require factual allegations showing substantially equal job content and valid comparators)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (ADEA adverse‑action and materially adverse change standards)
Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (Title VII pleading need not allege a full prima facie case but must plausibly support discriminatory intent)
Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (hostile‑work‑environment standard)
Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2007) (elements and totality‑of‑circumstances test for hostile‑work‑environment claims)
Belfi v. Prendergast, 191 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 1999) (EPA is strict liability; discriminatory intent not required)