Grzelewski v. M&C Hotel Interests, Inc.
1:17-cv-00884
W.D.N.Y.Jan 18, 2018Background
- Plaintiff James Grzelewski sued M&C Hotel Interests, Inc., initiating the action on September 8, 2017, alleging employment discrimination (age and disability theories).
- Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on October 13, 2017; briefing was completed in November 2017.
- Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott issued a Report and Recommendation on January 2, 2018: grant dismissal of the age-discrimination claim but allow amendment of the disability-discrimination claim.
- No party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation; plaintiff’s counsel expressly stated he did not object and intended to seek leave to amend.
- The district court reviewed the R&R, concluded the age claim could plausibly be pleaded in the alternative, and modified the R&R to permit amendment of the age claim as well.
- The defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied; plaintiff was granted leave to move for leave to amend by February 9, 2018, or else dismissal would be entered and the case closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint fails to state an ADEA claim | Complaint’s facts plausibly show age could be "but-for" cause; alternative pleading is permitted | Plaintiff did not plead a separate/alternative ADEA claim and thus failed to allege age as the "but-for" cause | Court declined to dismiss age claim outright; allowed leave to amend age claim |
| Whether complaint fails to state an ADA/disability claim | Plaintiff should be allowed to amend to cure deficiencies | Dismissal for failure to state a disability claim is warranted | Court followed R&R in permitting plaintiff leave to amend the disability claim |
| Whether district court must review unobjected-to R&R de novo | Plaintiff did not object and sought leave to amend | Defendant relied on R&R dismissal recommendation | Court noted no objection is required but reviewed R&R and modified it to allow amendment |
| Remedy for pleading defects on motion to dismiss | Grant leave to amend to cure pleading defects | Grant dismissal with prejudice | Court denied dismissal, granted leave to move for leave to amend by a deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (district court not required to review de novo portions of magistrate judge recommendation to which no party objects)
- Fagan v. U.S. Carpet Installation, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 490 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (at pleading stage, complaint need only plausibly allege that age was the "but-for" cause; alternative theories need not be pleaded in separate counts)