In Slmonsen v. KSH Aviation LLC, No. 25-CV-00266 (MMG), 2026 WL 880383 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2026), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of employment discrimination asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The Court must assume all well-pled facts to be true, “drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Koch v. Christie’s Int’l PLC, 699 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 2012); see also A.I. Trade Fin., Inc. v. Petra Bank, 989 F.2d 76, 79–80 (2d Cir. 1993) (“[A]ll allegations are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and doubts are resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, notwithstanding a controverting presentation by the moving party.”). The complaint meets this standard.
The timing of Plaintiff’s termination and the comments alleged to have been made by Defendant Jeffrey Kelter support an inference of discrimination and retaliation. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 30–33, 38; Ulrich v. Soft Drinks, Brewery Workers & Delivery Emps., 425 F. Supp. 3d 234, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (determining at the pleading stage an employee could show a causal connection between a complaint and his termination where he was terminated two months after engaging in protected activity). However marginally, Plaintiff’s allegations also suffice to meet Title VII’s numerosity requirement at this stage of the case, id. ¶¶ 24–25, and to show that Defendants were joint employers, id. ¶ 1 (alleging individual defendants are high-net-worth businessmen who control corporations that collectively own the private jets integral to corporate defendants’ business); ¶¶ 7–9 (alleging corporate defendants shared an address); id. ¶ 25 (alleging individual defendants “substantially controlled the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment”); id. ¶ 26 (alleging individual defendants vetted pilots before hiring).
The court also held that plaintiff’s breach of contract and unpaid wage claims also survive, since “the issue of whether unpaid compensation constitutes a discretionary bonus or nonforfeitable earned wages is a question of fact” and noted that “that the exact amount of the promised bonus payments is not specified is not fatal to plaintiff’s claim.”