DiResta v. Biz2Credit Inc.

Background

Timothy DiResta, who was proceeding without a lawyer, applied for an associate corporate counsel position at Biz2Credit. He alleged that Shujah A. Awan, the legal hiring coordinator and deputy general counsel, interviewed him and that a hiring manager said Awan considered him everything the company wanted. DiResta alleged that company staff later learned his age from his resume and decided that he was not young enough for the position. He was weeks short of 50 at the time, and the person hired for the position was 31.

DiResta alleged that the person hired was not licensed as an attorney in New York and had no experience with New York law, even though Biz2Credit had advertised that such experience was sought. He filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and later received a notice allowing him to sue. His amended complaint asserted age-discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and New York’s Human Rights Law.

Motions and Legal Standard

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. DiResta moved for sanctions under Rule 11, arguing that the defendants’ motion was frivolous and caused unnecessary delay.

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true but required enough specific facts to make the claims plausible rather than merely possible. For an ADEA hiring claim, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that he was qualified, suffered an adverse employment action, and was not hired because of his age. The ADEA requires age to be the “but-for” cause of the employer’s decision, meaning the decision would not have occurred without the plaintiff’s age.

ADEA Claim

The court held that the amended complaint did not adequately allege that DiResta was qualified for the associate corporate counsel position. It identified the position and referred to his 25 years of experience, but it did not explain the position’s requirements, DiResta’s specific skills, the type of experience he had, or how that experience related to the job. The statement that Awan considered DiResta everything he wanted did not, by itself, establish that DiResta possessed the basic skills needed for that particular position.

The court also held that the complaint did not provide enough factual support for an inference of age discrimination or for age being the but-for cause of the hiring decision. The fact that Biz2Credit hired someone younger was not enough by itself. DiResta alleged that the younger hire lacked a New York license and New York-law experience, but he did not allege that DiResta himself had those qualifications. DiResta also did not explain how he knew that company staff decided he was too old or provide specific facts supporting that allegation. The court therefore dismissed the ADEA claim without prejudice.

The court noted that it understood the amended complaint to assert the ADEA claim only against Biz2Credit. It stated that, even if DiResta intended to assert that claim against Awan, individuals cannot be held liable under the ADEA.

New York Human Rights Law Claim

After dismissing the federal ADEA claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over DiResta’s state-law age-discrimination claim under New York’s Human Rights Law. The court dismissed that claim without prejudice as well.

Opportunity to Amend

Although DiResta had not formally requested permission to amend, the court allowed him an opportunity to replead because it could not conclude that amendment would be futile. Any amended pleading had to be filed within 30 days of the opinion. The court stated that DiResta did not have to use the standardized complaint form.

Rule 11 Sanctions

The court denied DiResta’s sanctions motion. Rule 11 requires that legal arguments have a reasonable basis in existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law, and that filings not be submitted for an improper purpose such as harassment or unnecessary delay. The court found that the defendants’ motion persuasively explained why the current complaint failed to state a claim. Because the defendants succeeded on their motion to dismiss, the court also rejected the argument that the motion caused unnecessary delay.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. It denied DiResta’s motion for sanctions. The court stated that the case would be closed if amended pleadings were not filed within 30 days.