Iazzetti v. Town of Tuxedo

Background

Thomas A. Iazzetti sued the Town of Tuxedo and Michael Rost under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Iazzetti alleged age discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation. The alleged conduct included a Department of Motor Vehicles investigation, unpaid suspension, disciplinary notices, a later demotion from Head Mechanic to Machine Equipment Operator, loss of an office, missing retirement credits, loss of a clothing allowance, and disposal of personal belongings.

Iazzetti alleged that Rost wanted to terminate him to save money rather than terminate two younger employees. He also alleged that younger inspectors had performed inspections on non-Town vehicles without being investigated or charged. Iazzetti filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge on September 15, 2017, and filed this federal action on July 9, 2018.

Rule 12(b)(6) standard

The defendants moved to dismiss the entire complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to make a claim legally plausible. The court treated well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but did not accept unsupported legal conclusions.

Federal claims

The court dismissed Iazzetti’s Title VII and ADEA claims against Rost with prejudice, holding that those statutes do not impose individual liability on an employee or supervisor. Claims against Rost in his official capacity would also duplicate the claims against the Town.

The court dismissed Iazzetti’s Title VII claims without prejudice because Title VII protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin—not age—and Iazzetti alleged only age discrimination.

For the ADEA claims, the court held that allegations based on conduct occurring before November 19, 2016, were untimely because Iazzetti filed his administrative charge on September 15, 2017, more than 300 days after those events. The court dismissed those ADEA claims with prejudice. It explained that the continuing-violation doctrine did not save the earlier claims because the disciplinary actions, suspension, and demotion were separate acts rather than one ongoing hostile-work-environment practice.

The court dismissed the timely ADEA discrimination claims without prejudice. It concluded that the alleged demotion and loss of retirement credits or a clothing allowance could qualify as materially adverse employment actions, but Iazzetti did not provide enough facts to support an inference that those actions were motivated by age. The court also found that the allegations about younger inspectors did not show that they were similarly situated in all important respects.

The court dismissed the ADEA hostile-work-environment claims without prejudice because the alleged conduct was not severe or pervasive enough and was not plausibly connected to Iazzetti’s age. It dismissed the ADEA retaliation claims because Iazzetti did not allege that he had engaged in protected activity opposing unlawful discrimination before the challenged actions.

NYSHRL claims

The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over the NYSHRL claims. It held that NYSHRL claims based on conduct before March 10, 2015, were time-barred and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims with prejudice.

The court then applied the same general analysis to the timely NYSHRL discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims. It granted the motion to dismiss those claims against both the Town and Rost without prejudice. The court also rejected NYSHRL aiding-and-abetting liability against Rost because Iazzetti had not adequately pleaded an underlying violation by the Town.

Disposition and amendment

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. It granted Iazzetti leave to file an amended complaint as to claims dismissed without prejudice, setting an August 28, 2020 deadline. The order stated that failure to amend by that deadline, absent good cause, would result in dismissal of the claims with prejudice. The court directed the clerk to terminate the defendants’ motion.