Desrosiers v. Summit Security Services, Inc.

Background

Joseph Desrosiers alleged that Summit Security Services, Inc. and Allied Universal Security Services, LLC discriminated against him based on national origin and age. His claims arose under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Desrosiers alleged that he was treated worse than younger and non-Haitian coworkers and that similar or more serious conduct by those employees had gone unpunished. He did not identify those employees, describe their jobs or conduct, state whether they had the same supervisors or worked at the same site, or otherwise explain how they were similarly situated to him.

He also relied on statements and conduct attributed to Summit Site Supervisor Brian Hackett. Desrosiers alleged that Hackett questioned his speaking Haitian and commented that things were bad in Haiti. He further alleged that Hackett directed him to give older employees a difficult time, expressed displeasure when Desrosiers discussed retirement, and asked when he intended to retire. Desrosiers did not allege that Hackett made the termination decision. The complaint stated that Robert Banks informed him of the termination and that Banks and Charles Scirotta signed the final warning.

Motion and Legal Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but required enough nonconclusory facts to make discrimination a plausible explanation for the employment action.

National-Origin Claims

The court dismissed Desrosiers’s Title VII national-origin claim. His allegations about younger and non-Haitian employees did not identify comparators with enough specificity or show that they were similarly situated in all material respects.

The court also concluded that Hackett’s comments did not plausibly connect national-origin bias to the termination. Desrosiers did not provide a definite timeframe for the comments, did not allege that Hackett was the relevant decisionmaker, and did not allege a causal connection between the comments and the termination. The court stated that the comments about speaking English and conditions in Haiti, without additional context, did not create a sufficient inference of discriminatory intent.

Age Claims

The court dismissed Desrosiers’s claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for similar reasons. He did not provide enough information about younger employees who allegedly received better treatment. His allegations about being told to give older employees a difficult time and being asked about retirement also lacked sufficient detail and a connection to the termination. The court found that the alleged comments did not plausibly show that age was the required cause of the employment action.

New York State and New York City Claims

The court dismissed the New York State Human Rights Law claims because the national-origin and age claims under that law are analyzed under the same standards as the corresponding federal claims.

The court separately considered the New York City Human Rights Law, which has a more liberal standard. Even under that standard, however, Desrosiers had to allege facts supporting a reasonable inference that he was treated less well because of a protected characteristic. The court found that his lack of specific comparator allegations and his failure to connect Hackett’s comments to the termination required dismissal of the city-law claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed all counts against Summit and Allied and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion and the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.