Scott-Monck v. Matrix Absence Management, Inc.

Background

Joan Scott-Monck sued Matrix Absence Management, Inc., proceeding without a lawyer, under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged two types of claims under each law: age discrimination and retaliation for opposing age discrimination.

Scott-Monck alleged that she was approximately 66 years old when Donn Eric Foster, a director who oversaw the group in which she worked, made comments that an older manager should retire and that the office would survive. Scott-Monck told the manager about the comments, and the manager reported an age-discrimination claim to Human Resources. Scott-Monck alleged that Foster knew Human Resources had interviewed her about the comments.

She also alleged that, in spring 2018, Matrix did not select her for an Operations Manager position and instead promoted two younger applicants. In July 2018, Matrix placed her on a Final Warning and a 60-day Performance Alignment Plan based on alleged work deficiencies. She reported those actions to an ethics hotline and alleged that they were retaliation for her earlier report to Human Resources. She completed the performance plan in September 2018. Matrix terminated her employment on January 7, 2019, citing a problem involving leave reporting by an examiner on her team. Scott-Monck disputed that explanation and alleged that a younger person replaced her.

Scott-Monck first sued in December 2019. The court dismissed her original complaint without prejudice and allowed her to amend. She filed an amended complaint on October 15, 2021. Matrix then moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the pleaded facts plausibly state a legal claim for relief.

Age-discrimination claims

The court treated the amended complaint as alleging four causes of action: age discrimination and retaliation under the federal law, and equivalent claims under the New York law. For the discrimination claims, the court considered two alleged adverse employment actions: the denial of the promotion and the termination. It treated the Final Warning and performance plan as part of the alleged basis for the termination rather than separate adverse actions because Scott-Monck did not allege that they materially changed her working conditions.

The court held that the allegations did not plausibly suggest that the promotion denial or termination occurred because of Scott-Monck’s age. It found that Foster’s alleged comments about another employee were five to sixteen months before the alleged adverse actions and therefore too distant, standing alone, to support an inference of discrimination. The court also found that allegations concerning the treatment of the other employee did not by themselves show discrimination against Scott-Monck.

The court further reasoned that Scott-Monck’s allegations that younger applicants received the promotion and that a younger person replaced her were insufficient by themselves. She did not allege how she was similarly situated to the other applicants or that she was better or equally qualified. The other applicants were also over 40 and therefore within the age group protected by the federal law. The court dismissed the age-discrimination claims under both the federal and New York laws.

Retaliation claims

For retaliation, the court required allegations that Scott-Monck engaged in protected activity, Matrix knew about it, Matrix took an adverse employment action, and there was a connection between the protected activity and that action.

The court found that Scott-Monck did not allege that anyone involved in the termination decision knew about her ethics-hotline report. Although she alleged that Foster knew about her report to Human Resources concerning his comments, she did not plausibly allege a connection between that report and the promotion denial or termination. The court found that the timing alone was insufficient: several months passed before the promotion denial, and substantially longer periods passed before the performance plan and termination. The court dismissed the retaliation claims under both the federal and New York laws.

Disposition

The court concluded that Scott-Monck had already amended once after receiving notice of the alleged pleading deficiencies and the court’s earlier ruling. It found no indication that another amendment would cure those deficiencies. The court therefore granted Matrix’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Scott-Monck’s amended complaint with prejudice. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, enter judgment, close the case, and mail the opinion and order to Scott-Monck.