Ophir v. Koneksa Health Inc

Background

Gol Ophir sued Koneksa Health Inc. and Christopher Benko, Koneksa’s CEO and Ophir’s supervisor. Ophir alleged that defendants discriminated against him because of his age when setting his compensation and terminated him in retaliation for complaints concerning the alleged sexual harassment and battery of another Koneksa employee. Defendants moved to dismiss under the rule requiring a complaint to contain enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim.

Ophir worked for Koneksa beginning in December 2018 as its General Counsel, Head of Corporate Development and Partnerships, and Chief Risk Officer. He alleged that Koneksa used outside salary reports to set compensation around the 50th percentile for employees’ roles, with a minimum near the 25th percentile. According to the complaint, Ophir’s salary was near the 10th percentile, while most employees were paid near the 50th percentile. Ophir also alleged that another employee who was older than him for much of his employment was paid below the 25th percentile, and that other executive leadership team members received higher salaries, equity grants, or bonuses.

Federal age-discrimination claim

Ophir’s first claim arose under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits employment discrimination because of age. To proceed at the motion-to-dismiss stage, he had to plausibly allege that his compensation would have been higher but for age discrimination.

The court recognized that the complaint adequately alleged some pay difference between Koneksa’s two oldest employees and the rest of the workforce. The alleged departures from Koneksa’s salary benchmarks were relevant evidence of a pay disparity, particularly because the complaint alleged that Koneksa used those benchmarks to set compensation. The court also considered allegations that Benko knew about the pay differences and declined to correct them.

The court nevertheless held that the allegations did not plausibly show age-based discriminatory intent. A pay disparity, standing alone, did not establish that Ophir’s compensation was set because of his age. The court found that the complaint did not allege that connection in a sufficiently specific, non-conclusory way. It also noted allegations suggesting possible non-discriminatory explanations for the compensation decisions, including Ophir’s disagreements with Koneksa’s President and Chief Operating Officer. The court therefore dismissed Claim One, the federal age-discrimination claim, for failure to state a claim.

Remaining claims and disposition

The age-discrimination claim was the only federal claim. After dismissing it, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state and local claims, over Claims Two through Seven. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied their request for oral argument as moot, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 16, and terminated the case.