Henderson v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc.

Background

Monique Henderson, who was representing herself, sued her former employer, Saks & Company, LLC, alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The opinion notes that Henderson initially named Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc., but the caption was amended to use Saks & Company, LLC.

Saks moved to dismiss all of Henderson’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. The district court had referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses, who recommended that the court deny dismissal of Henderson’s age-retaliation claim, dismiss her age-discrimination claim without prejudice and with leave to amend, and dismiss her Title VII claim with prejudice.

Henderson objected to the recommendation, arguing that the court had failed to give proper effect to an August 23, 2022, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determination. The agency had found probable cause to believe that Saks acted with discriminatory intent against Henderson and other similarly situated older employees. The agency also stated that Saks’s asserted reason for Henderson’s discharge—her failure to meet required sales numbers—did not withstand scrutiny. The court noted that the agency’s finding was not conclusive but could support Henderson’s allegations at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Henderson made specific objections from scratch and reviewed the remaining portions for clear error. It also applied a more flexible reading because Henderson was representing herself, while explaining that this did not allow her simply to repeat earlier arguments or raise new arguments that could have been made before the magistrate judge.

For the ADEA discrimination claim, the magistrate judge had found that Henderson did not provide enough factual detail about a younger colleague who allegedly was treated more favorably, such as the colleague’s age, position, seniority, disciplinary record, or the events underlying the comparison. The recommendation also noted that Henderson did not identify a statement or comment suggesting that her termination was motivated by age.

The district court nevertheless concluded that the EEOC’s probable-cause finding, following an investigation lasting more than two years, strengthened Henderson’s allegations. The complaint alleged that Henderson and other older employees were harassed and that she and at least nine other older employees in her department were terminated within a twelve-month period. The court held that, liberally reading the complaint, Henderson had provided more than labels and conclusions and had stated a plausible ADEA discrimination claim. It therefore sustained her objection on that claim and denied Saks’s motion to dismiss it.

The court upheld the recommendation concerning the Title VII claim. The EEOC determination addressed age discrimination and retaliation but made no finding concerning race, color, religion, sex, or national origin—the protected categories relevant to the Title VII claim described in the opinion. Henderson did not rebut that point. The court therefore overruled her objection to dismissal of the Title VII claim.

The court also found no clear error in the recommendation to deny dismissal of the ADEA retaliation claim. Saks had not objected to that recommendation. The court denied Henderson’s separate request to pause the motion while the parties pursued mediation.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres sustained Henderson’s objection to the recommended dismissal of her ADEA discrimination claim, overruled her other objections, and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation except where modified. Henderson’s ADEA discrimination and retaliation claims may proceed. Her Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims were dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate Saks’s dismissal motion.