In Ophir v. Koneksa Health Inc., No. 655301/2025, 2026 WL 1472577 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 19, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s age discrimination claims asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, finding that such claims were sufficiently alleged.
From the decision:
The motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims is denied. To allege employment discrimination, a plaintiff must show (a) she is a member of a protected class; (b) she was qualified for the position; (c) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (d) that the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (Hribovsek v United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, 223 AD3d 618 [1st Dept 2024]). A plaintiff alleging employment discrimination does not need to plead a prima facie case of discrimination but must only give fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds (Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140 [1st Dept 2009]). Accepting the facts alleged as true, Plaintiff alleged he was qualified for his position, that in his position he was discriminated against on the basis of age, that he suffered an adverse employment action – namely lower pay and ultimately termination, and for purposes of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has also alleged the adverse employment actions took place under circumstances giving rise to an inference of age discrimination (see, e.g. Keenan v Bloomberg L.P., 244 AD3d 622, 623 [1st Dept 2025]).
Discovery is needed to resolve the issue of whether Plaintiff’s substantially lower compensation than his younger peers on the ELT was motivated in part by age discrimination. Moreover, the Complaint is riddled with specific factual allegations of statements about Plaintiff’s age and wanting the company to be younger, which for purposes of a pre-answer motion to dismiss are sufficient to find an inference of age discrimination. Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff failed to show he was not similarly situated is without merit given he compares himself to other members of the ELT and includes an allegation that, based on information from the Chief People Officer he was the oldest ELT member and the lowest paid ELT member.
Based on this, the court held that dismissal was not warranted.