Adams v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.

Background

Michelle Adams sued Equinox Holdings, Inc., Elvira Bolotbekova, Joe Matarazzo, Matt Herbert, Wil Diaz, and Alex Songolo under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). She alleged that she received less favorable pay and fewer clients than younger trainers, was required to train younger employees who later received her clients, experienced a hostile work environment, and faced retaliation after filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The motion addressed only the claims against Matarazzo, Herbert, and Diaz. They moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support a claim. At this stage, the court accepted plausible allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Adams’s favor.

Rulings on the ADEA Claims

The court dismissed Adams’s ADEA claims against the three individual defendants. Adams stated in her opposition that she never intended to sue them under the ADEA, so the court treated any such claims as abandoned. The court also held that, even if she had intended to assert them, courts in the circuit have long concluded that the ADEA does not impose individual liability on supervisors. The court ultimately dismissed these claims with prejudice because Adams had already been given an opportunity to amend her complaint.

NYCHRL Limitations Issue

The individual defendants argued that Adams’s NYCHRL claims relied on conduct outside the three-year limitations period. The court concluded that Adams plausibly alleged a continuing violation: an ongoing discriminatory policy or practice that included at least some acts within the limitations period. The court therefore allowed her allegations concerning earlier conduct to be considered at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

NYCHRL Discrimination Claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss Adams’s NYCHRL discrimination claim against Matarazzo, Herbert, and Diaz. Although Adams alleged that the defendants knew about her lower pay, smaller client base, and hostile treatment, she did not plead facts showing that any of the three acted, at least in part, because of her age. The court also noted allegations that Herbert and Diaz had tried to help restore her business after surgery, which cut against an inference of discriminatory intent. This claim was dismissed with prejudice.

NYCHRL Aiding-and-Abetting Claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss Adams’s NYCHRL claim that the individual defendants aided and abetted discrimination. Under the NYCHRL, an individual may be liable for actually participating in unlawful discrimination, and such participation can include failing to investigate or take appropriate corrective action after being informed of discriminatory conduct.

Adams alleged that each individual defendant knew about her complaints that younger trainers received more clients, that Matarazzo knew of and perpetuated her alleged unequal treatment, and that Herbert and Diaz failed to correct the client-assignment problem after she complained. She also alleged that the defendants knew Bolotbekova had made hostile age-related remarks but continued requiring them to work together. Accepting those allegations as true, the court found that Adams had plausibly stated an aiding-and-abetting claim.

NYCHRL Retaliation Claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss Adams’s NYCHRL retaliation claim against the three individual defendants. Adams alleged that she was treated worse after filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint, but she did not plead facts showing a causal connection between that protected activity and any action by Matarazzo, Herbert, or Diaz. The court also stated that her termination did not establish liability for these defendants because she had not alleged that they played a role in the termination. This claim was dismissed with prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. It granted the motion as to Adams’s ADEA age-discrimination claims against Matarazzo, Herbert, and Diaz, her NYCHRL discrimination claim against them, and her NYCHRL retaliation claim against them; those claims were dismissed with prejudice. It denied the motion as to her remaining NYCHRL claim that the individual defendants aided and abetted discrimination. The court directed the parties to submit a joint letter about the status of discovery within one week.