OPINION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Anna Maria Culmone-Simeti brings this action against the New York City Department of Education (“DOE” or “the Defendant”) alleging that she was discriminated against pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) and faced a hostile work environment. Plaintiff filed her first Complaint on March 30, 2017 alleging (1) age discrimination in violation of the ADEA; (2) age discrimination in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”); and (3) age discrimination in violation of New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). Plaintiff later abandoned her NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. Thereafter, this Court granted DOE’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADEA claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on July 11, 2018 without prejudice to re-plead her claims in an amended complaint. See Culmone-Simeti v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 17 Civ. 2313 (ER), 2018 WL 3384437 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2018) (“Culmone-Simeti I”). Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on August 10, 2018 pursuant to the ADEA and the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. §626(f). Doc. 26. Plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment based on her age. Id. at 5. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that the Board of Education (BOE) brought false disciplinary charges against her, and forced her to resign under duress, five months prior to her twenty-year anniversary of pensionable service with BOE. Id.
12, 14. Pending before the Court is the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Doc. 34. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.I. BACKGROUNDA. Factual Background1In the amended complaint, Culmone-Simeti alleges that the DOE took adverse actions against her including terminating her employment, providing her with terms and conditions of employment different from similar employees, harassing and verbally abusing her, and creating a hostile work environment. Amend. Compl., Doc. 26 at 5. She also alleges that she was not advised of her rights under the OWBPA when she signed the settlement agreement in exchange for the DOE’s dropping of the §3020-a disciplinary charges, even though she acknowledges that she was represented by counsel when she signed.2 Id.
