Rota v. CP Unlimited of New York State

Background

Joyce O. Rota proceeded without a lawyer and sued CP Unlimited of New York State under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Rota alleged that CP terminated her employment, did not promote her, and retaliated against her. She also alleged that a house manager made disparaging comments about her age, that other employees mocked her age and suggested that she retire, and that she was treated differently from other employees when required to provide a doctor’s note for an absence.

Rota stated that she was terminated on June 14, 2022. She attached to her complaint an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge dated or filed around August 7, 2023, and a notice allowing her to sue dated or received around September 7, 2023. CP moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter authority, and 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the federal age-discrimination claim was time barred based on the allegations in the complaint. An Age Discrimination in Employment Act claimant generally must file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment action. Because Rota alleged that her termination occurred on June 14, 2022, the court calculated that the charge needed to be filed by April 10, 2023. The charge attached to the complaint was dated or filed around August 7, 2023.

In her opposition to the motion, Rota asserted that she had actually filed a charge in December 2022 and attached a charge dated and signed December 12, 2022. The court found that this material conflicted with the complaint: the complaint identified the termination on June 14, 2022, as the most recent unlawful action, while the December charge identified March 10, 2022. The court also noted that the December charge did not contain an agency charge number in the manner of the charge attached to the complaint. Because the new allegations were inconsistent with the complaint, the court declined to consider them in deciding the motion.

The court dismissed the age-discrimination claim without prejudice and granted Rota leave to amend the complaint to show that the claim was timely. Because the age-discrimination claim was the only claim over which the court had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rota’s New York State and New York City claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to recommence them in state court.

Disposition

The court granted CP Unlimited’s motion to dismiss Rota’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim without prejudice. It also dismissed the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims without prejudice to recommence them in state court. Rota was permitted to file an amended complaint by November 8, 2024. The order stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. If Rota did not file an amended complaint by the deadline, the dismissed claims would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. If she filed an amended complaint asserting a plausible claim within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, she could assert related state-law claims. CP was directed to answer or otherwise respond by November 29, 2024, if an amended complaint was filed.