Scott-Monck v. Matrix Absence Management, Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-11798
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Scott-Monck v. Matrix Absence Management, Judge Roman granted Matrix’s motion to dismiss, allowing Scott-Monck to amend her complaint.
Joan Scott-Monck’s age-discrimination and retaliation claims against Matrix Absence Management, Inc. were dismissed without prejudice, and she was allowed to file an amended complaint.
What happened
In Scott-Monck v. Matrix Absence Management, Inc., Joan Scott-Monck, representing herself, claimed that Matrix discriminated against her because of her age and retaliated after she reported a supervisor’s age-related comments. She alleged that Matrix denied her a promotion, placed her on a performance plan, and terminated her employment.
The court ruled that the complaint did not provide enough facts to plausibly connect those actions to age discrimination. It also ruled that the alleged timing and circumstances did not adequately connect Matrix’s actions to her reports to Human Resources or the ethics hotline.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Matrix’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Scott-Monck’s claims without prejudice. He allowed her to file an amended complaint by October 15, 2021; the order stated that failing to do so without good cause would result in dismissal with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Scott-Monck v. Matrix Absence Management, Inc. · No. 7:19-cv-11798
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 14, 2021
Background
Joan Scott-Monck brought a self-represented lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged that Matrix, her former employer, discriminated against her because of her age and retaliated against her after she reported age-related comments made by Donn Eric Foster about another employee, Toranzo.
Scott-Monck alleged that Foster said Toranzo was an ineffective manager who should retire and referred to Toranzo’s age. Scott-Monck reported what she heard to Human Resources. She later applied for an Operations Manager position but was not selected. She was then placed on a final warning and a 60-day performance plan, and Matrix terminated her employment in January 2019. She alleged that these actions were related to her age and to her reports about Foster’s comments. She also called Matrix’s ethics hotline to complain that the warning and performance plan were retaliatory.
Matrix moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Scott-Monck had not pleaded enough facts to support her discrimination and retaliation claims.
Court’s Analysis
The court dismissed the age-discrimination claims under both federal and state law. It concluded that Foster’s comments about Toranzo occurred five to sixteen months before the actions Scott-Monck challenged and were too separated in time to support a plausible inference that those actions were based on age. The court also found that allegations concerning Toranzo’s treatment, standing alone, did not show that Scott-Monck was treated adversely because of her age. In addition, the allegations that younger applicants received the promotion or that a younger person replaced Scott-Monck were insufficient by themselves to support an inference of age discrimination.
The court also dismissed the retaliation claims. Scott-Monck did not allege that anyone involved in the termination decision knew about her ethics-hotline report. Although she alleged that Foster knew she had reported his comments to Human Resources, the complaint did not specify when those conversations occurred and did not provide enough facts connecting that report to the promotion decision, performance plan, or termination. The court found the alleged time gaps, without additional supporting facts, insufficient to show a retaliatory motive.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Matrix’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Scott-Monck’s claims without prejudice and granted her leave to file an amended complaint by October 15, 2021. The order stated that if she did not file an amended complaint within the permitted time, without good cause, her claims would be dismissed with prejudice. If she filed an amended complaint, Matrix was required to answer or seek permission to file a non-duplicative motion by November 5, 2021.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.