Omor v. Sera Security Services LLC
1:14-cv-02602
S.D.N.Y.Apr 15, 2015Background
- Omor, a 65-year-old Nigerian-born Black Christian with security guard credentials, applied for a Sera Security position after a Workforce 1 referral; interview occurred on December 2, 2013, but Sera did not hire him; he alleges discrimination based on age, race, national origin and other protected statuses; he filed an EEOC charge in December 2013 alleging age, race and national origin discrimination and later amended his complaint; Sera moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing lack of administrative exhaustion, failure to show discriminatory inference, and that an individual defendant could not be liable; court subsequently considers whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over NY state and city claims; decision grants dismissal of federal claims with prejudice and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction others, with a recommendation that the Second Amended Complaint be dismissed accordingly; no discovery has occurred at this stage.
- The action is against Sera Security Services, LLC; the Court is addressing a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint; Omor proceeds pro se.
- The opinion discusses required exhaustion of administrative remedies under Title VII and the ADA, and analyzes whether Omor’s unexhausted sex, religion, and disability claims can be reasonably related to the exhausted age, race, and national origin claims.
- Judge Maas applies the Rule 12(b)(6) standard and liberal pleading standards for pro se plaintiffs, concluding Omor’s claims are legally insufficient to survive dismissal.
- The court notes the Second Amended Complaint supersedes prior pleadings and addresses individual liability limits under Title VII and the ADEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Omor exhausted administrative remedies for all asserted claims | Omor argues all Title VII, ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims should proceed. | Sera contends certain sex, religion, and disability claims are unexhausted and not reasonably related to the EEOC charge. | Exhaustion required; unexhausted claims dismissed. |
| Whether Omor pleads plausible discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA | Omor alleges discrimination based on age, race, and national origin. | Plaintiff fails to show similarly situated comparators or discriminatory statements; allegations are conclusory. | Claims not plausible; dismissed. |
| Whether individual Londen can be liable for federal discrimination claims | Londen named as defendant in initial pleadings; Omor seeks individual liability. | Title VII and ADEA do not permit individual liability. | Londen cannot be individually liable; claims dismissed. |
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims | Requests retention of NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims. | With federal claims dismissed, declining supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate. | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction; state claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes the prima facie framework for discrimination suits)
- Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (discrimination pleading standards in Second Circuit)
- Jackson v. County of Rockland, 450 F.App’x 15 (2d Cir. 2011) (insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss; conclusory claims fail)
- Williams v. N.Y.C. Housing Auth., 458 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2006) (claims reasonably related to EEOC charge; exhaustion matters)
- Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc’ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (U.S. 2009) (amended complaint supersedes prior pleadings; rules on pleading)