In Cumby, Jackson v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Case No. 23-CV-06565-FPG, 2024 WL 2725183 (W.D.N.Y. May 28, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of age discrimination asserted under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
From the decision:
Here, at this early stage of proceedings, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that his termination, which constitutes an adverse employment action, occurred “under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.”4 Gorzynski, 596 F.3d at 107-08. It is undisputed that Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant on February 17, 2022, after Plaintiff rescheduled a meeting. ECF No. 1 at 7. It is likewise undisputed that, in August 2021, an employee who was less experienced than Plaintiff and in his late twenties, Brooks, began training for a Profit Center Manager position. Id. at 8. A few months later, after Plaintiff began to look older, Mann asked Plaintiff if he “would prefer to live in Florida[,]” which is a state known to be a residence for older, retired individuals. Id. at 6-7. Additionally, during late 2021 and early 2022, Plaintiff claims he began to be “treated more coldly and negatively” than younger employees, despite Plaintiff’s acceptable performance. Id. at 7. Plaintiff also claims that younger employees were not terminated for rescheduling meetings on a same-day basis and that he did not receive “progressive discipline” before his termination. Id. at 8. Viewing these allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that these combined circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination in connection with his termination.
The court held, however, that the alleged incidents of age discrimination (other than his termination) were not themselves separately actionable, and do not constitute a “continuing violation.”