Herrnson v. Hoffman

Background

Samuel Herrnson represented himself in this action against Steven Hoffman, Mark Hoffman, and Hoffman Management. He alleged age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The defendants moved for summary judgment on those claims and on their counterclaims for fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

Herrnson worked for Hoffman Management as a property manager from June 4, 2018, through November 9, 2018. He was 59 years old during that period. After Mark Hoffman learned that Herrnson was behind on rent, Mark gave him a $16,000 check. Herrnson characterized the payment as a gift, while the defendants characterized it as a loan conditioned on continued employment. After Herrnson left work early on November 7 and failed to report to work or notify his supervisors or coworkers on November 8, Mark Hoffman emailed him that he was terminated for abandoning the job.

In December 2018, the parties signed an agreement and general release. Herrnson released his ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims, while the defendants agreed to treat the $16,000 as a gift and permit its release from escrow. Herrnson later argued that he signed the agreement under duress. The court concluded that the disputed duress issue did not affect the outcome because the defendants were entitled to judgment on the ADEA claim even assuming Herrnson had not waived it.

Court’s Analysis

For an ADEA claim, the plaintiff must provide evidence that age was the reason for the adverse employment action. The court found that Herrnson satisfied the requirements of being at least 40 years old, qualified for the position, and terminated. But he did not show that the termination occurred under circumstances suggesting age discrimination.

Herrnson relied mainly on the fact that two younger property managers were not treated the same way. The court found that he had not shown that those employees engaged in the same or similar misconduct—failing to report to work without notice—while avoiding discipline. The court also found that Steven Hoffman’s one “School’s out” comment was an isolated remark that did not establish discriminatory intent. Mark Hoffman’s participation in both hiring and firing Herrnson further weighed against an inference of age discrimination.

The court additionally held that, even if Herrnson had established an initial showing of discrimination, Hoffman Management provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination: Herrnson left work early and then failed to report to work without notice. Herrnson offered no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that this reason was false or a cover for age discrimination. Because the NYSHRL claims use the same framework in this context, the court granted summary judgment on that claim as well.

Remaining Claims and Disposition

After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over Herrnson’s NYCHRL claim. The court determined that the NYCHRL claim involved a separate and evolving legal standard and was better resolved in New York state court. It likewise declined jurisdiction over the defendants’ state-law counterclaims for fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The opinion states that the parties were all citizens of New York, so diversity jurisdiction was unavailable for those counterclaims.

The court’s conclusion was as follows:

- The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted as to Herrnson’s ADEA and NYSHRL claims. - Those ADEA and NYSHRL claims were dismissed with prejudice. - Herrnson’s NYCHRL claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. - The defendants’ state-law counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. - The Clerk was directed to close the motion and the case.