In Dufour v. Havas Gemini, LLC, No. 25-CV-8915 (LAP), 2026 WL 2185298 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s failure-to-promote claim.
From the decision:
The only alleged incident within the limitations period of the Title VII and ADEA claims is Plaintiff’s termination. Even considering Plaintiff’s other allegations as background evidence, there is no inference of discrimination. With respect to the failure to promote claim, Plaintiff never alleged in his Complaint that he had actually applied for Director of Project Management; rather, he merely states he was “denied the promotion.” (See generally Compl.) Such is fatal to his claim. See Brown v. Coach Stores, Inc., 163 F.3d 706, 710 (2d Cir. 1998) (A plaintiff must “allege that she or he applied for a specific position or positions and was rejected therefrom, rather than merely asserting that on several occasions she or he generally requested promotion.”).
Plaintiff also contends that outside employees were hired for the positions he sought, but he does not allege any of their protected characteristics to show that the decisions to promote others over himself give rise to an inference of discrimination. (See Compl. ¶¶ 22, 38, 43, 51.) Rather, the allegations show that both men and women were hired for the role and that one individual had “38 years of experience.” (Id. ¶¶ 43, 51.)
The termination occurred on December 1, 2022, and Plaintiff asserts that there was no explanation for the decision. (Id. ¶¶ 77–81.) Yet the Complaint does not plausibly allege the COVID-19 accommodation request played a role in the decision to terminate as it occurred more than a year prior. (Id. ¶¶ 28, 41.) While Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the way Defendant handled a previous HR complaint, the alleged favoritism amongst other employees, and the lack of explanation for his termination, (id. ¶¶ 41, 57-50, 60), this dissatisfaction is not enough to give rise to a discriminatory inference surrounding the circumstances of his termination. See Brodt v. City of New York, 4 F. Supp. 3d 562, 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“[A] plaintiff’s feelings and perceptions of being discriminated against are not evidence of discrimination” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded facts to support the inference that his termination was motivated by discrimination based on a protected characteristic.
The court concluded that “[p]laintiff’s allegations are conclusory, and an inference founded in a legal conclusion or one that merely recites the cause of action is insufficient.”