Szuszkiewicz v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 12 F. Supp. 3d 330

Background

Szuszkiewicz, a pro se plaintiff, worked as a financial advisor for J.P. Morgan from Jan 15, 2008 until his termination on June 6, 2011; he alleges mental illness began in mid-2008 after workplace harassment.
He alleges coworkers accused him of alcoholism and immoral conduct, and that the hostile environment contributed to his mental illness.
After mental-health crises in 2008–2009 (hospitalization, arrests, incarceration, treatment), Szuszkiewicz remained on long-term disability; he completed treatment and sought reinstatement in Jan 2011.
J.P. Morgan ultimately terminated him in June 2011, citing past harassment of a vendor employee ("Nory") and violation of the firm’s non-harassment policy.
He filed an EEOC charge on Oct 5, 2011 alleging discriminatory discharge because his disability caused the earlier harassment; he received a right-to-sue letter and sued under the ADA.
J.P. Morgan moved to dismiss: (1) hostile work environment claim as untimely/not exhausted; (2) discriminatory termination claim as insufficient and precluded by the non-harassment policy rationale.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether hostile work environment claim is timely/exhausted	Szuszkiewicz contends the hostile environment from 2008 is part of an ongoing violation and is encompassed by his 2011 EEOC charge	J.P. Morgan argues the 2008 harassment is time-barred (outside 300 days) and was not raised with the EEOC	Court: Dismissed — hostile work environment claim not exhausted; continuing-violation doctrine inapplicable and claim was not raised in EEOC charge
Whether termination is a discrete act that can revive earlier claims	Szuszkiewicz treats termination as part of a continuing hostile environment	J.P. Morgan treats termination as a separate, discrete adverse act	Court: Termination is a discrete act and cannot be used to revive untimely hostile-environment allegations
Whether Szuszkiewicz pleaded a viable ADA discriminatory termination claim	He alleges he was disabled (or perceived as such), his disability caused the misconduct, and the employer waited to fire him until he sought to return from disability — implying pretext	J.P. Morgan contends it terminated him for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons (policy violation) and points to the harassment as the basis for discharge	Court: Denied dismissal as to termination claim — complaint plausibly states an ADA claim and plaintiff is entitled to discovery on motive/pretext
Whether leave to amend hostile work environment claim should be allowed	Szuszkiewicz sought relief as a pro se litigant and alleged prolonged mental incapacity	J.P. Morgan argued the hostile-environment claim is outside EEOC scope and amendment would be futile	Court: Denied leave to replead that claim — futile because it was not alleged to EEOC and not reasonably related to the charge

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (apply Twombly two-pronged pleading inquiry)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (distinguishing discrete acts from continuing hostile-environment claims)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (pleading standard for employment discrimination; prima facie not required at pleading stage)
Legnani v. Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane, S.p.A., 274 F.3d 683 (EEOC exhaustion requirement in ADA context)
Zerilli-Edelglass v. New York City Transit Auth., 333 F.3d 74 (equitable tolling may apply in rare circumstances for mentally impaired plaintiffs)