In Regis v. Noem, Civil Action No. 24-2405 (SLS), 2025 WL 1580808 (D.D.C. June 4, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Plaintiff, a 59 year-old former fingerprint specialist at the United States Secret Service, alleged that defendant subjected him to “adverse employment actions” including that his supervisors excluded him from training opportunities, placed him on a performance improvement plan that required weekly check-ins, and cancelled his telework privileges.
As to the “inference of discrimination” element of his claim, the court explained:
Finally, Mr. Regis’s allegations raise an inference of discrimination. A plaintiff may establish an inference of discrimination through either “direct evidence of … animus” or a comparison to a similarly situated employee. Yuvienco v. Vilsack, No. 23-cv-186, 2024 WL 727712, at *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 2024). Where a plaintiff relies on a comparison to a similarly situated employee, the plaintiff “must also demonstrate that all of the relevant aspects of his employment situation were nearly identical to those of the other employee.” Burley v. Nat’l Passenger Rail Corp., 801 F.3d 290, 301 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). Here, Mr. Regis alleges his “level of errors or case revisions were no greater than the level of errors committed or case revisions” of similarly situated Fingerprint Specialists outside of his age group. Compl. ¶ 12. And Mr. Regis experienced less favorable treatment, including exclusion from training opportunities, see id. ¶ 9, weekly check-ins that took time away from his normal schedule, see id. ¶ 16, and cancellation of his telework privileges, see id. ¶ 18. These allegations are sufficient at this stage. See Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 514 (finding that a complaint with allegations about the events leading up to an adverse action and the ages of at least some of the relevant persons involved with the adverse action satisfied the pleading standard for an age discrimination claim under the ADEA); see also, e.g., Golden v. Management & Training Corporation, 319 F. Supp. 3d 358, 376 (D.D.C. 2018) (finding a plaintiff’s allegation that he “was treated less favorably than similarly situated younger managers employed by Job Corps who did not satisfactorily perform their duties during [the plaintiff’s] tenure” to be sufficient to make out a claim under the ADEA (cleaned up)); Washington v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 170 F. Supp. 3d 234, 241–42 (D.D.C. 2016) (the plaintiff pleading “that other … employees outside of the ADEA’s protected class were treated more favorably than he was” was sufficient to “give [the] plaintiff’s ADEA claim facial plausibility”).
The court further held that plaintiff’s retaliation claim but not his hostile work environment claim, survived dismissal.