Williams v. PMA Companies, Inc., 564 F.Supp.3d 32

Background

Plaintiff Bruce Williams, born 1956, was Assistant Vice President of Claims for PMA/PMAMC, primarily based in DeWitt, NY; in mid‑2018 he bought a home in Myrtle Beach and requested partial remote work.
His remote‑work request was denied after supervisors (Walsh, Altiere, McGill) consulted; on Aug. 28, 2018 a heated meeting occurred and Walsh reported that Williams had resigned.
HR processed an internal termination effective Aug. 28, 2018 while payroll continued through Sept. 21, 2018; Williams disputes that he voluntarily resigned and alleges he was terminated/forced out.
Williams complained of age discrimination to Walsh, HR, and McGill and filed claims under the ADEA and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) for age discrimination and retaliation; defendants moved for summary judgment.
The Court granted summary judgment dismissing the ADEA and NYSHRL discrimination claims but denied summary judgment on the ADEA and NYSHRL retaliation claims and on the NYSHRL aider/abettor claim against Walsh, citing material factual disputes (e.g., resignation vs. termination, timing of protected complaints, and causation).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of remote‑work constituted an adverse employment action supporting ADEA/NYSHRL discrimination	Denial was an adverse denial of an employment benefit and was granted to younger employees	Denial did not change terms of employment; remote work is discretionary, so not an adverse action	Denial of remote work is not an adverse employment action for discrimination (no materially adverse change)
Whether Williams was terminated or resigned (and whether constructive discharge occurred) and whether that supports discrimination	Williams says he was forced out/constructively discharged after Walsh spread rumor he resigned and blocked access to systems	Defendants say Williams resigned on Aug. 28 and HR merely formalized exit; even if voluntary, no intolerable conditions forcing resignation	Genuine dispute of fact exists whether Williams resigned or was terminated/constructively discharged; but even accepting adverse action, plaintiff failed to raise an inference of age discrimination, so discrimination claims dismissed
Whether Williams established ADEA/NYSHRL retaliation (timing, adverse action, causation)	He engaged in protected activity by complaining about age and was then subjected to adverse actions (denial, being prevented from working, and separation) closely following complaints	Defendants argue protected complaints occurred after the adverse action or that actions were not adverse under retaliation standard; denial/rescission refusal not materially dissuasive	Summary judgment denied as to retaliation: factual disputes (when complaints were made, whether an adverse action occurred, and causation) preclude resolution on summary judgment
Whether Walsh has individual liability under NYSHRL as an aider/abettor	Walsh participated in spreading resignation/retirement rumors and played a meaningful role that caused the adverse action	Walsh lacked authority as final decisionmaker; any comments were stray and insufficiently connected to decisionmakers	Denied as to Walsh: genuine disputes about his role and timing prevent summary judgment on aider/abettor liability

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and genuine dispute test)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant and nonmovant burdens on summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must present more than metaphysical doubt)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 557 U.S. 167 (but‑for causation required in ADEA disparate‑treatment cases)
Lively v. WAFRA Inv. Advisory Gr., 6 F.4th 293 (2d Cir. 2021) (discusses ADEA elements and but‑for standard)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (retaliation adverse‑action standard)
Raspardo v. Carlone, 770 F.3d 97 (hostile work environment standard under Title VII/related jurisprudence)
Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130 (cat’s‑paw liability and role of biased non‑decisionmakers)
Woodman v. WWOR‑TV, Inc., 411 F.3d 69 (replacement by younger employee can support inference of age discrimination only with employer knowledge)