Chang v. Mizuho Securities USA LLC
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-03874
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chang v. Mizuho Securities USA LLC, Judge McMahon denied the employers’ motion to dismiss discrimination and retaliation claims.
The four plaintiffs may continue litigating their discrimination and retaliation claims against Mizuho Securities USA LLC and Mizuho Bank (USA); the defendants’ dismissal motion was denied.
What happened
Nelson Chang, Kwaku Ntoso, Jia Peng, and Lisa Wright sued Mizuho Securities USA LLC and Mizuho Bank (USA), their former employers, alleging discrimination and retaliation under federal and New York City laws.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that the complaint included enough detailed facts to plausibly support the claims at this early stage, so the case may continue.
Judge McMahon denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court noted that a later motion for summary judgment may follow discovery, when the evidence can be tested more fully.
The detailed version
- Chang v. Mizuho Securities USA LLC · No. 1:21-cv-03874
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 11, 2022
Background
Nelson Chang, Kwaku Ntoso, Jia Peng, and Lisa Wright brought claims against Mizuho Securities USA LLC and Mizuho Bank (USA). They alleged discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Motion and legal standard
The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that, at the pleading stage, the complaint needed to include factual allegations giving plausible support to the claims. The court also said that reasonable inferences were to be drawn in favor of the plaintiffs.
Ruling
The court found that the First Amended Complaint, although “not perfect,” was detailed enough to satisfy the pleading standard and allow the plaintiffs to proceed with the litigation. The court stated that discovery and a possible later motion for summary judgment would provide an opportunity to test whether the allegations had evidentiary support.
Judge McMahon denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket number 24.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.