UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED judgment district AFFIRMED appellant Mary appeals dismissal Equal Pay Act

(“EPA”), U.S.C. § 206(d), New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) claims, well denial leave amend second appeal erred because: (1) adequately pled violations NYCHRL; (2) deficient, been granted time; declined exercise supplemental jurisdiction over law when dismissed the We assume the parties’ familiarity underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented review. “We review grant a motion dismiss de novo, accepting

true factual and drawing reasonable inferences favor.” Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739, 740–41 (2d Cir. 2013). “To survive a motion dismiss, a must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted true, a claim relief that plausible its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “A has facial plausibility when plaintiff pleads content that allows draw reasonable inference that defendant liable misconduct alleged.” Id. This standard “asks more sheer possibility defendant has acted unlawfully.” “A offers labels and conclusions or formulaic recitation elements cause action will do.” (internal citation quotation marks omitted). EPA. “To prove violation EPA, plaintiff must first establish case showing: i) employer pays different wages employees opposite sex; ii) employees perform equal work jobs requiring equal skill, effort, responsibility; iii) jobs performed working conditions.” Belfi Prendergast, F.3d (2d Cir. (internal citation quotation marks omitted); see Corning Glass Works Brennan, U.S. “[A] plaintiff need job identical higher paid position, but must show positions substantially equal skill, effort, responsibility.” Lavin McEleney Marist Coll., “To satisfy this standard, establish jobs compared entail common content, simply overlap titles classifications.” EEOC Port Auth. N.J., proof “Under employer ʹ s *4 discriminatory intent is not necessary for plaintiff to prevail her . Thus, prima facie showing gives presumption discrimination.” Belfi, at 136.

The amended complaint fails allege that Eng her comparators “perform[ed] equal work jobs requiring equal skill, effort, responsibility; jobs are performed similar working conditions.” Port Auth. N.J., at Eng’s only allegations are she is longest tenured criminalist amongst her comparators, she is Safety Officer, is criminalist available 24/7, although she contradicts this allegation by stating comparators “rarely” called after work hours, which means they too be available called outside regular office hours. Joint App’x at 63. at no point provides factual about or comparators’ job duties, skills, efforts, responsibilities their respective jobs were substantially equal. Thus, fails violation EPA. exhibits attached Eng’s amended complaint help. generic

“NYPD Careers” advertisement for appointment criminalist is inadequate basis comparing equal job duties. Similarly, list in Exhibit for various “scientific section manager[s]” unhelpful it apparent who performs what job, whether these jobs criminalists. at 74. Indeed, incorporation these exhibits creates additional ambiguity about whether coworkers actually held responsibilities alleging own job duties could be found Exhibit (which describes four different positions), but coworkers described “Exhibit and/or Exhibit 2.” at failed adequately allege job duties; however, Eng likewise fails specify job duties, number comparators does affect analysis. seeks judicial notice form employment SDNY web site. This form no way aids argument; requires

pro se plaintiff, not, enter narrative discrimination.

State Law. that: ^[1] NYSHRL claims are not subject federal plausibility standard, ^[2] plausibly she pled gender age discrimination, ^[3] conduct an independent analysis state law

[1] To make out under must show she was: (1) “a member protected class;” (2) “qualified position;” (3) “subjected an adverse employment action;” “either terminated treated differently under circumstances giving rise an inference discrimination.” Askin Dep’t Educ. Of N.Y., 973 N.Y.S.2d 630

Eng’s claims, brought federal court, are subject federal pleading standard, relaxed pleading standards state courts. “[F]ederal are apply substantive law federal procedural law.” Hanna Plumer, U.S. (1965); see Cooper State Dep’t Labor, (applying federal standards retaliation claims NYSHRL).

[2] Plaintiff’s threadbare give plausible inference discrimination basis age gender. year old woman who paid less year old man, ‐ year old man, year old woman. That alone cannot support an inference discriminatory animus reason disparities pay alleges; “cannot infer from thin air.” Norton Sam’s Club,

[3] clearly conducted independent analysis claims: claims discussed separately from Plaintiff’s federal separate heading. Law. “[C]ourts analyze separately independently any law claims, construing NYCHRL’s *6 provisions broadly favor of plaintiffs, to the extent such a construction is reasonably possible.” Mihalik Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., F.3d (2d Cir. (internal citations quotation marks omitted). “Thus, if challenged conduct is actionable under federal law, federal consider separately whether is actionable broader standards.” Plaintiff’s argument is failed to conduct a meaningful analysis NYCHRL claim. Plaintiff is mistaken. undertook an independent analysis NYCHRL allegations, noting separate legal standard NYCHRL claim, then concluded complaint remedy problems besetting NYCHRL original complaint. Merely listing alleged pay difference with men age as with younger woman does plausibly “has been treated less well other employees gender” age. Williams N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., N.Y.S.2d next allegations deficient, been granted leave amend complaint “We review denial abuse discretion, unless denial based an interpretation law, legal conclusion reviewed de novo.” Starr Sony BMG Music Entm’t, (internal omitted). “Futility determination, as matter law, proposed amendments fail cure prior deficiencies claim Rule 12(b)(6) Federal Rules Civil Procedure.” Panther Partners Inc. Ikanos Commc’ns, Inc., “ In assessing whether proposed states claim, consider proposed amendments . along remainder complaint, accept true non conclusory therein, draw reasonable inferences favor determine whether give entitlement relief.” citations district court properly determined allowing any further amendments would be futile. It would be no help assign paragraph numbers listed in exhibits, has offered do. Even if exhibits, which district court already took into account in its analysis, incorporated directly into body of Complaint, Eng alleges no new facts would cure deficiencies. Therefore, district court did abuse its discretion denying assuming insufficient make out claims EPA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, amendment be futile, district have declined exercise supplemental jurisdiction over NYCHRL claims. district exercise of supplemental jurisdiction governed U.S.C. § 1367(a), states, pertinent part, “the district shall supplemental jurisdiction over other claims so related claims action within such original jurisdiction they form part of same case controversy Article III Constitution.” “For purposes section 1367(a), claims form part same controversy they derive common nucleus operative fact.” Shahriar Smith Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc., Because NYCHRL arise out same common nucleus operative facts, abuse its discretion exercising supplemental jurisdiction over See Treglia Town Manlius, (exercise supplemental jurisdiction proper where arose “out approximately same set events”).

Accordingly, AFFIRM judgment court. THE COURT:

CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

[1] reliance Port Authority misplaced involved more comparators, those plaintiffs

[3] For same reasons claim, Plaintiff’s subject heightened standard.