Ceresa v. Rathjen

Background

Robert L. Ceresa filed this self-represented employment-discrimination action after paying the filing fee. He alleged that the defendants discriminated against him because of his age by terminating his employment. The complaint used the court’s general form, but every other page was missing. Ceresa requested unspecified relief.

Ceresa alleged that he was the Senior Director of the Municipal Securities Group at Roberts-Ryan Investments. He stated that, on January 21, 2021, Brian Rathjen, James Neimie, Sadie Millard, and Ken Merlo terminated his services during a marketing call by saying that the firm was shutting down the Municipal Bond Department. Ceresa alleged that the department did not actually close and that younger personnel whom he had trained remained employed there. He also alleged that the firm wanted to avoid paying him $39,348 in fees and commissions and believed younger workers could perform the same job for less pay.

Ceresa attached an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notice dated July 7, 2022. The notice stated that the agency closed his charge because he was not in an employment relationship with the respondent.

Legal framework

Because Ceresa alleged age discrimination and had sought relief from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, or ADEA. The ADEA prohibits an employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an individual because of age, and it protects workers who are at least 40 years old.

The court explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to make entitlement to relief plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, a self-represented plaintiff must still provide a short and plain statement of facts supporting a claim.

Ruling on the defendants

The court held that Ceresa could not bring ADEA claims against Rathjen, Neimie, Millard, and Merlo because they were individuals. Under the court’s interpretation of the ADEA, the statute permits liability against an employer, but not against supervisors or other individual defendants. The court therefore dismissed Ceresa’s ADEA claims against those four defendants.

The court granted Ceresa leave to file an amended complaint naming the proper defendant or defendants. If he named Roberts-Ryan Investments as his employer, the court stated that he would need to allege facts suggesting that an employment relationship existed between him and the firm, particularly in light of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s statement that no employment relationship existed.

The court further stated that an amended complaint would need to plausibly allege that an employer took adverse employment action against Ceresa and that his age was the but-for cause of that action. The court said Ceresa could rely on facts directly showing discrimination or facts that indirectly created a plausible inference of discrimination.

Leave to amend and other instructions

The court granted Ceresa 60 days to amend because additional facts might allow him to state a valid ADEA claim. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so any facts or claims Ceresa wanted the court to consider had to be repeated in the new filing.

The court instructed Ceresa to identify the relevant people and their titles, describe the relevant events and each defendant’s conduct, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief he sought. He was also instructed to provide addresses for named defendants if he had them and to label the filing “Amended Complaint” with docket number 22-CV-7070. No summons would issue at that time.

The court stated that if Ceresa did not comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

Disposition

The court dismissed the ADEA claims against Rathjen, Neimie, Millard, and Merlo and granted Ceresa leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The opinion did not decide whether Ceresa ultimately could prove age discrimination or whether Roberts-Ryan Investments was legally his employer.