amended complaint that the court permits.

The proposed Second Amended Complaint includes the new claims from the proposed Supplemental Amended Complaint as well as joinder of claims against Yann Gindre, plaintiff’s supervisor at Natixis Securities North America Inc., and Natixis North America Inc., the corporate defendants. Since the proposed Second Amended Complaint incorporates and replaces the proposed Supplemental Amended Complaint, the court denies plaintiff’s first motion to supplement his First Amended Complaint as moot and considers only his subsequent motion.

Regarding the remaining motions, the court concludes, in sum, that plaintiff fails to sustain a claim for defamation or retaliation based on defendants’ filing with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) a Form U-5 Uniform Termination Notice, specifying defendants’ reason for terminating plaintiff from their employment. As for defamation based on the Form U-5, it is absolutely privileged so as to immunize defendants from liability. Although the absolute privilege is not equally dispositive of plaintiff’s retaliation claim, filing the Form U-5 did not constitute or cause the requisite change in the terms or conditions of plaintiff’s employment, because his employment already had ceased when defendants filed the form. Even if filing the form were an adverse employment action, defendants filed the form in response to FINRA requirements that subjected defendants to penalties for noncompliance, rather than in retaliation for plaintiff pursuing

*3

this action.

Plaintiff does sustain claims for age discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Defendants discharged him, the oldest member of his team by at least a decade, despite his successful performance of his duties, and under other circumstances that raised an inference of age discrimination, such as the discharge of other employees who were older than the average employees and his supervisor’s specific remarks about his age. He also may sue that supervisor who effectuated many of the corporate defendants’ adverse actions.

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT BY ADDING CLAIMS

A.STANDARDS FOR AMENDING THE COMPLAINT

C.P.L.R. §3025(b) permits amendments to a complaint as long as the they do not unfairly surprise or otherwise substantially prejudice defendants, Kocourek v. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., 85 A.D.3d 502, 504 (1st Dep’t 2011); Jacobson v. McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharms., 68 A.D.3d 652, 655 (1st Dep’t 2009); Thompson v. Cooper, 24 A.D.3d 203, 205 (1st Dep’t 2005); Zaid Theatre Corp. v. Sona Realty Co., 18 A.D.3d 352, 354-55 (1st Dep’t 2005), and the proposed claims, as alleged, are meritorious. Sabo v. Alan B. Brill, P.C., 25 A.D.3d 420, 421 (1st Dep’t 2006); Thompson v. Cooper, 24 A.D.3d at 205; Zaid Theatre Corp. v. Sona Realty Co., 18 A.D.3d at 355; Watts v. Wing, 308 A.D.2d 391, 392 (1st Dep’t 2003). Plaintiff bears the

*4