In Shuby v. Yale Univ., No. 3:25-CV-645 (AWT), 2026 WL 63352 (D. Conn. Jan. 8, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s disability and age discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
As to plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims, the court explained:
The court agrees with the defendant that the plaintiff has failed to allege facts that could show that any adverse action was imposed because of her disability.1 As the defendant contends, the “only allegation contained in the Complaint purportedly demonstrating a discriminatory animus on the part of Yale is that an unidentified employee stated that the plaintiff ‘is not as sharp as she used to be.’ ” Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16-1) (“Def. Mem.”) at 10 (quoting Compl. ¶ 18). “In determining whether a remark is probative, [courts] have considered four factors: (1) who made the remark (i.e., a decision-maker, a supervisor, or a low-level co-worker); (2) when the remark was made in relation to the employment decision at issue; (3) the content of the remark (i.e., whether a reasonable juror could view the remark as discriminatory); and (4) the context in which the remark was made (i.e., whether it was related to the decision-making process).” Henry v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc., 616 F.3d 134, 149 (2d Cir. 2010). “Courts in this Circuit have repeatedly granted motions to dismiss where the inference of discriminatory intent rests on stray remarks made by those outside of the plaintiff’s chain of command.” Williams v. Westchester Med. Ctr. Health Network, 2022 WL 4485298, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2022). Here, there are no factual allegations that provide any information about the employee who made the remark or the context in which the remark was made.
“[V]erbal comments may raise an inference of discrimination, but not where they lack a causal nexus to the [discriminatory] decision.” DeFranco v. New York Power Auth., 731 F. Supp. 3d 479, 491 (W.D.N.Y. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). That is the situation here.
The court likewise dismissed plaintiff’s age discrimination claims, since they “are based on the same stray remark as her disability discrimination claims.”