Fried v. LVI Services, Inc., 500 F. App'x 39

Fried, former Chairman of LVI, was terminated; CEO State assumed leadership less than six weeks earlier.
LVI asserted a nondiscriminatory reason: need for CEO to manage company as he saw fit.
Fried alleged age bias and retaliation under the ADEA; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
HELD: Appeals court reviews de novo; no reasonable jury could find pretext or but-for causation for age discrimination.
Evidence included a contemporaneous remark referencing Fried’s age by the new CEO, but the court found it insufficient for but-for discrimination.
Fried’s NYCHRL claims were rejected; Hoffman v. Parade Publications requires employees to work in New York, which Fried did not.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADEA pretext standard at step three	Fried argues stray remarks show bias and totality supports pretext	LVI’s stated non-discriminatory reason suffices; bias evidence insufficient	No reasonable jury could find pretext; district court affirmed
ADEA retaliation causation	Retaliation occurred for complaining of age discrimination	No but-for causal link shown	But-for or motivating-factor analysis yields insufficient evidence
NYCHRL impact requirement	Actions in New York and NY meetings show impact	Hoffman limits NYCHRL protections to those who work in the city	Summary judgment proper; Fried did not work in NYC

Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (non-dispositive factors for weighting stray remarks in discriminatory bias)
Henry v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 616 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2010) (four factors for evaluating isolated remarks in discrimination cases)
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (but-for causation required for ADEA discriminatory claims)
Hoffman v. Parade Publ’ns, 15 N.Y.3d 285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010) (NYCHRL protections confined to those who work in New York)