Horoschak v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.

Background

David Horoschak, Michael Harris, and Mills Staylor sued Sirius XM under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. They alleged that Sirius XM’s February 2024 reduction in force, which eliminated about 160 roles, was a pretext for age discrimination. Each plaintiff had worked for Sirius XM for more than a decade and was over 40 when terminated.

The plaintiffs alleged that new leadership had shifted the company toward recruiting younger employees. They relied in part on a May 2022 statement by Sirius XM’s chief technology officer that the company intended to recruit younger employees to match a younger target customer base. They also alleged that some named plaintiffs received unjustified negative performance reviews or were marginalized, and that all three were replaced by younger, less experienced, and less qualified employees.

The plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action. Their proposed group was described inconsistently: one definition covered all Sirius XM employees over 40 whose employment ended since February 12, 2024, while another covered employees over 40 whose employment ended since 2022. The plaintiffs submitted only the email announcing the February 2024 reduction in force and submitted no declarations, affidavits, or other supporting evidence.

Legal standard

At the first step of the collective-action process, conditional certification, plaintiffs must make a modest factual showing that they and potential opt-in plaintiffs were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. This is a low evidentiary burden, but it is not automatic and cannot be met through unsupported or conclusory assertions alone. If conditional certification is granted, notice may be sent to potential plaintiffs; after discovery, the court may later decide whether the people who joined are actually similarly situated.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the plaintiffs did not meet even this low burden. They asserted that Sirius XM had a companywide age-discrimination plan but provided no declarations, affidavits, or other evidence of that plan. The court also found no sufficient factual connection between the chief technology officer’s 2022 comment about recruiting younger employees and the plaintiffs’ terminations 20 months later, much less the terminations of other employees.

The court identified additional problems with the proposed collective. The plaintiffs did not consistently define which employees were similarly situated, and the proposed group was broad. The court also noted differences among potential members, including that only some reported to the chief technology officer, only some were terminated rather than leaving in another way, some had signed releases, some had signed arbitration agreements containing collective-action waivers, and some claims might be time-barred. These differences further weakened the showing of a common policy and common proof.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 19. The opinion expressly states that the merits of the plaintiffs’ individual claims were not at issue.