Ophir v. Koneksa Health Inc, 1:23-cv-09145

Gol Ophir, formerly General Counsel and an executive at Koneksa Health, alleged wage discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), claiming his compensation was lower than younger peers'.
Ophir was the oldest executive leadership team (ELT) member and the second-oldest employee at Koneksa.
Defendants maintained official policies to compensate ELT members equally and according to industry standards, but Ophir claims these were not followed.
Disparities alleged: lower base salary, lack of equity grants, and lower industry percentile compensation for both Ophir and the oldest employee.
The initial complaint was dismissed for failing to plausibly allege the required but-for causation between age and compensation disparity.
Ophir moved to amend his complaint; the court considered whether the proposed amendments cured the original complaint’s deficiencies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amended complaint plausibly alleges	PAC provides "ample circumstantial evidence" of discriminatory intent, including	Pay disparity exists but not because of age; no employer-age comments; possible	Amendment is futile; no plausible ADEA claim
compensation was set lower but for age	differential pay and remarks about age from colleagues.	non-discriminatory explanations for pay disparities.	if adverse action plausibly not linked to age.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard for pleadings)
Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (leave to amend should be freely given absent futility or other valid reason)
Milanese v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 244 F.3d 104 (grounds for denial of leave to amend)
Panther Partners Inc. v. Ikanos Commc’ns, Inc., 681 F.3d 114 (futility of amendment standard)
Green v. Town of E. Haven, 952 F.3d 394 (ADEA prima facie case elements)