DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by Julia Barton (“Plaintiff Barton”) and McKenna S. Frank (“Plaintiff Frank”) against Warren County (“Defendant County”), Nathan York (“Defendant York”), and Al Maday (“Defendant Maday”) (collectively “Defendants”), is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and/or for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). (Dkt. No. 4.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND A. Summary of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Defendants discriminated against and retaliated against both Plaintiff Barton and Plaintiff Frank after they informed Defendants that they were pregnant. (See generally Dkt. No. 1 [Plfs.' Compl.].) Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts the following eight claims against all Defendants: (1) a sexual discrimination claim through a hostile work environment under Title VII, (2) a sexual discrimination claim through a hostile work environment under New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), (3) a sexual discrimination claim through disparate treatment under Title VII, (4) a sexual discrimination claim through disparate treatment under NYSHRL, (5) a pregnancy discrimination claim under Title VII, (6) a pregnancy discrimination claim under NYSHRL, (7) a retaliation claim under Title VII, and (8) a retaliation claim under NYSHRL. (Id.) Familiarity with the factual allegations supporting these claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for the review of the parties. (Id.) B. Parties’ Briefing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Generally, in support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants assert the following five arguments: (1) all federal claims against Defendants York and Maday must be dismissed as a matter of law because Second Circuit precedent maintains that Title VII does not provide for individual liability; (2) all of Plaintiffs’ state law claims under NYSHRL must be dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to timely serve a Notice of Claim (“NOC”) on Defendants under NYSHRL; (3) Plaintiffs fail to plead facts plausibly suggesting that they were exposed to a hostile work environment under Title VII; (4) Plaintiffs fail to state a retaliation claim under both federal and state law because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit, and do not allege facts plausibly suggesting that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs under either Title VII or NYSHRL; and (5) Plaintiffs fail to state disparate treatment claims under Title VII because they fail to allege facts plausibly suggesting that either Plaintiff was treated any differently than any other employee who was unable to fully perform the essential functions of their jobs. (See generally Dkt. No. 4-4 [Defs.' Memo. of Law].) Generally, in opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs assert the following six arguments: (1) Defendants impermissibly assert, and rely on, facts in their motion to dismiss, which should be disregarded as a matter of law; (2) Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled their pregnancy claims because they have alleged facts plausibly suggesting that both Plaintiffs suffered adverse employment actions because they were pregnant; (3) Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled their hostile work environment claims because they have alleged facts plausibly suggesting that they were subject to an objectively a hostile work environment; (4) Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled their disparate treatment claims because they have alleged facts plausibly suggesting that they were treated differently than each other; (5) Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled their retaliation claims because they have alleged facts plausibly suggesting Defendants retaliated against them based on their pregnancy-status; and (6) Plaintiffs’ NYSHRL claims against Defendants York and Maday are properly before the Court, because a NOC is not required to assert such claims against county employees. (See generally Dkt. No. 5 [Plfs.' Memo. of Law].) Generally, in reply to Plaintiffs’ response, Defendants asserts the following five arguments: (1) Plaintiffs’ federal claims against Defendants York and Maday must be dismissed as a matter of law because, in their opposition memorandum of law, Plaintiff’s failed to respond to Defendants’ challenges to those claims, (2) all of Plaintiffs’ state law claims must be dismissed against all Defendants because of Plaintiffs’ concessions in their opposition memorandum, (3) Plaintiffs admit they cannot plead any cognizable claim for a hostile work environment under Title VII and NYSHRL, (4) Plaintiffs’ disparate treatment claims are patently defective because they fail to plead facts that compare similarly situated individuals to Plaintiffs, and (5) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for retaliation because Plaintiff Barton failed to allege a single subsequent retaliatory act and Plaintiff Frank failed to show a causal connection between the adverse action and alleged retaliatory motive. (See generally Dkt. No. 10.) II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS A. Legal Standard Governing a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction “It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Generally, a claim may be properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where a district court lacks constitutional or statutory authority to adjudicate it. Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). A district court may look to evidence outside of the pleadings when resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. (citing Malik v. Meissner, 82 F.3d 560, 562 [2d Cir. 1996]). When a court evaluates a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, all ambiguities must be resolved and inferences drawn in favor of the plaintiff. Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc., 426 F.3d 635, 638 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113). B. Legal Standard Governing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim It has long been understood that a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), can be based on one or both of two grounds: (1) a challenge to the “sufficiency of the pleading” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); or (2) a challenge to the legal cognizability of the claim. Jackson v. Onondaga Cty., 549 F. Supp.2d 204, 211 nn. 15-16 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (McAvoy, J.) (adopting Report-Recommendation on de novo review). Because such dismissals are often based on the first ground, some elaboration regarding that ground is appropriate. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) [emphasis added]. In the Court’s view, this tension between permitting a “short and plain statement” and requiring that the statement “show[]” an entitlement to relief is often at the heart of misunderstandings that occur regarding the pleading standard established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). On the one hand, the Supreme Court has long characterized the “short and plain” pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) as “simplified” and “liberal.” Jackson, 549 F. Supp. 2d at 212 n.20 (citing Supreme Court case). On the other hand, the Supreme Court has held that, by requiring the above-described “showing,” the pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires that the pleading contain a statement that “give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Jackson, 549 F. Supp. 2d at 212 n.17 (citing Supreme Court cases) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has explained that such fair notice has the important purpose of “enabl[ing] the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial” and “facilitat[ing] a proper decision on the merits” by the court. Jackson, 549 F. Supp. 2d at 212 n.18 (citing Supreme Court cases); Rusyniak v. Gensini, 629 F. Supp. 2d 203, 213 & n.32 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (Suddaby, J.) (citing Second Circuit cases). For this reason, as one commentator has correctly observed, the “liberal” notice pleading standard “has its limits.” 2 Moore’s Federal Practice §12.34[1][b] at 12-61 (3d ed. 2003). For example, numerous Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions exist holding that a pleading has failed to meet the “liberal” notice pleading standard. Rusyniak, 629 F. Supp. 2d at 213 n.22 (citing Supreme Court and Second Circuit cases); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-52 (2009). Most notably, in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision holding that a complaint had stated an actionable antitrust claim under 15 U.S.C. §1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). In doing so, the Court “retire[d]” the famous statement by the Court in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), that “ a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1968-69. Rather than turn on the conceivability of an actionable claim, the Court clarified, the “fair notice” standard turns on the plausibility of an actionable claim. Id. at 1965-74. The Court explained that, while this does not mean that a pleading need “set out in detail the facts upon which [the claim is based],” it does mean that the pleading must contain at least “some factual allegation[s].” Id. at 1965. More specifically, the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level [to a plausible level],” assuming (of course) that all the allegations in the complaint are true. Id. As for the nature of what is “plausible,” the Supreme Court explained that “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. “[D]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief…[is] a contextspecific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense…. [W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged — but it has not show[n] — that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, while the plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” id., it “does not impose a probability requirement.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Because of this requirement of factual allegations plausibly suggesting an entitlement to relief, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by merely conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Similarly, a pleading that only “tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” will not suffice. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (internal citations and alterations omitted). Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. (citations omitted). Finally, with regard to what documents are considered when a dismissal for failure to state a claim is contemplated, generally, when contemplating a dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), the following matters outside the four corners of the complaint may be considered without triggering the standard governing a motion for summary judgment: (1) documents attached as an exhibit to the complaint or answer, (2) documents incorporated by reference in the complaint (and provided by the parties), (3) documents that, although not incorporated by reference, are “integral” to the complaint, or (4) any matter of which the court can take judicial notice for the factual background of the case.1 III. ANALYSIS As a threshold matter, the Court must elaborate on the standard to be applied at the pleadings stage for Title VII and NYSHRL discrimination claims. At the pleadings stage, “the allegations in the complaint need only give plausible support to the reduced prima facie requirements that arise under McDonnell Douglas in the initial phase of a Title VII litigation.” Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 316 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 [1973] ["McDonnell Douglas"]). The Supreme Court has clearly stated that an “employment discrimination plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case of discrimination[,]” because the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting standard is “ an evidentiary standard, not a pleading requirement.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510, 515 [2002]). As a result, to defeat a motion to dismiss in a “Title VII discrimination case, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) the employer took adverse action against him, and (2) his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor in the employment decision.” Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 87 (2d Cir. 2015). “[A]s long as the complaint gives the defendant ‘fair notice of [the plaintiff's] claim and the grounds upon which it rests,’ and ‘indicate[s] the possibility of discrimination and thus present[s] a plausible claim for disparate treatment,’ the complaint satisfies” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Marchioli v. Garland Co., Inc., 11-CV-0124, 2011 WL 1983350, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (D’Agostino, J.) (quoting Boykin v. KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202, 214-16 [2d Cir. 2008]). “The burden of making this showing is not onerous.” Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 575 U.S. 206, 228 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff may satisfy this burden by “alleging facts that directly show discrimination or facts that indirectly show discrimination by giving rise to a plausible inference of discrimination.” Vega, 801 F.3d at 87 (citing Littlejohn, 795 F.3d at 310). “An employee who alleges status-based discrimination under Title VII need not show that the causal link between injury and wrong is so close that the injury would not have occurred but for the act.” Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 343 (2013) (“Nassar”). “So-called but-for causation is not the test. It suffices instead to show that the motive to discriminate was one of the employer’s motives, even if the employer also had other, lawful motives that were causative in the employer’s decision.” Nassar, 570 U.S. at 343; see also Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1739-40 (2020) (explaining how Title VII liability can be found through either but-for causation or the motivating factor standard). Accordingly, “[t]he facts required…to be alleged in the complaint need not give plausible support to the ultimate question of whether the adverse employment action was attributable to discrimination. They need only give plausible support to a minimal inference of discriminatory motivation.” Littlejohn, 795 F.3d at 311. “Because NYSHRL claims are subject to the same standard as Title VII claims,” the Court will consider them together, unless noted otherwise. Soloviev v. Goldstein, 104 F. Supp. 3d 232, 246 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Salazar v. Ferrara Bros. Bldg. Materials Corp., 13-CV-3038, 2015 WL 1535698, at *5 [E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2015]); see also Pucino v. Verizon Wireless Commc’ns, Inc., 618 F.3d 112, 117 n.2 (2d Cir 2010) (“We review discrimination claims brought under the NYSHRL according to the same standards that we apply to Title VII discrimination claims.”). A. Whether the Court Can Consider Defendants’ Additional Facts Contained in Their Memorandum of Law After carefully considering the matter, the Court answers the question in the negative for the reasons stated below. As explained above in Part II.B. of this Decision and Order, generally, when contemplating a dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), the following matters outside the four corners of the complaint may be considered without triggering the standard governing a motion for summary judgment: (1) documents attached as an exhibit to the complaint or answer, (2) documents incorporated by reference in the complaint (and provided by the parties), (3) documents that, although not incorporated by reference, are “integral” to the complaint, or (4) any matter of which the court can take judicial notice for the factual background of the case.2 A court may take judicial notice at “any stage of the proceeding,” of any fact “that is not subject to reasonable dispute because” it “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2), (d). In this case, the additional facts relied on by Defendant County were not attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint but to its memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss. Defendant County’s additional facts cannot be considered “integral” to Plaintiffs’ Complaint because the Complaint does not rely (heavily or otherwise) on these additional facts in support of Plaintiffs’ claims and/or factual allegations. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002) (explaining that a document can be “integral” to a complaint where the complaint “relies heavily upon its terms and effect.”). Moreover, the Court may not take judicial notice of the additional facts within Defendants’ memorandum of law because those facts are not generally known within the Court’s jurisdiction nor can they be “accurately and readily determined from [accurate] sources,” at this stage of the litigation. Fed R. Evid. 201(b)(2). The only issue that remains, then, is whether the additional facts may be deemed incorporated by reference in the Complaint. Plaintiffs’ Complaint references an alleged inability by Plaintiff Frank to perform the essential functions of a corrections officer. (Dkt. No. 1, at 63 ["Instead, at this meeting, these senior officers retaliated against Brodie and made unsubstantiated allegations of her failure to perform the essential functions of a Correctional Officer."].) However, this singular reference is not enough to permit the Court to consider the additional facts on which Defendants rely, which pertain to the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Frank’s employment. (Dkt. No. 4-4, at 10-12 [Defs.' Memo. of Law, asserting that Plaintiff Frank (1) failed to conduct a housing unit inspection, (2) was observed to be falling asleep while on duty on multiple occasions, and (3) was found in a housing unit she was not assigned to].) See also McLennon v. City of New York, 171 F. Supp. 3d 69, 88 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (“To be incorporated by reference, the complaint must make a clear, definite and substantial reference to the documents.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Cosmas v. Hassett, 886 F.2d 8, 13 (2d Cir. 1989) (“Limited quotation does not constitute incorporation by reference.”). Simply stated, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not provide the Court with enough detail for a reader to reasonably discern whether the “unsubstantiated allegations” Plaintiff Frank refers to in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are the precise allegations detailed in the additional facts on which Defendants seek to rely in their memorandum of law. Accordingly, the Court cannot rely on Defendants’ additional facts under the incorporated by reference theory. For all of these reasons, the Court will not consider Defendant County’s additional facts when determining the outcome of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. B. Whether the Court Has Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims Because Defendants have moved for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), the Court must first assess whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims challenged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. See Wong v. CKX, Inc., 890 F. Supp. 2d 411, 414-15 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“When presented with a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must first analyze the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to determine whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction necessary to consider the merits of the action.”). After carefully considering the matter, the Court answers this question in the negative for the reasons stated in Defendants’ memoranda of law. (Dkt. No. 4-4; Dkt. No. 10.) To those reasons, the Court adds the following analysis, which is intended to supplement, and not supplant, Defendants’ reasoning. “‘State claims brought under state law in federal court are subject to state procedural rules.’” Styles v. Westchester Cty., 18-CV-12021, 2020 WL 1166404, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2020) (quoting Russell v. Westchester Cmty. Coll., 16-CV-1712, 2017 WL 4326545, at *5 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2017]). “In general, ‘[t]he service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a public corporation to recover damages for a tortious or wrongful act.” Fotopoulous v. Bd. of Fire Comm’rs of Hicksville Fire Dist., 76 N.Y.S. 3d 592, 594 (2d Dep’t 2018). Where a notice of claim is required by law as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a county, or employee thereof, “the notice of claim shall comply and be served in accordance with the provisions of this section within ninety days after the claim arises.” N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law §50-e(1)(a); Russell, 2017 WL 4326545, at *5; see also Bielski v. Green, 674 F. Supp. 2d 414, 427 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (explaining that N.Y. County Law Section 52 makes Section 50-e of the N.Y. General Municipal Law applicable to actions against a county). This requirement applies to both tort and discrimination claims. Hamilton v. Cty. of Onondaga, 15-CV-1333, 2018 WL 4554496, at *16 (N.D.N.Y. 2018) (Sannes, J.) (citing Grasso v. Schenectady Cty. Pub. Library, 817 N.Y.S. 2d 186 [3d Dep't 2006]). “Notice of claim requirements are construed strictly by New York state courts. Failure to comply with these requirements ordinarily requires dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.” Hardy v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 164 F.3d 789, 793-94 (2d Cir. 1999). 1. Claims Against Defendant County On October 8, 2018, Plaintiff Barton informed her supervisor of her pregnancy and her request for accommodations. (Dkt. No. 1, at 34.) On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff Barton was informed that no accommodations would be provided. (Id. at 36-38.) As a result, under N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law Section 50-e, Plaintiff Barton was required to serve a NOC no later than January 7, 2019. However, Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to allege facts plausibly suggesting that Plaintiff Barton served a timely NOC on Defendant County. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) With respect to Plaintiff Frank, she alleged that her claims arose on or about July 18, 2018. (Id. at
52-67.) Like Plaintiff Barton, Plaintiff Frank was required to serve a NOC no later than October 16, 2018. However, Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to allege facts plausibly suggesting that Plaintiff Frank served a timely NOC on Defendant County, contrary to the requirements of N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law Section 50-e(1)(a). Indeed, Plaintiffs concede that they were required to serve a NOC on Defendant County and that no such timely NOC was ever served for either Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 5, at 16.) Because neither Plaintiff Barton nor Plaintiff Frank served a NOC on Defendant County within the statutorily imposed ninety-day window, Plaintiffs failed to comply with a required condition precedent to sue Defendant County under NYSHRL. For these reasons, the Court finds that each of Plaintiffs’ NYSHRL claims (counts two, four, six, and eight) must be dismissed against Defendant County due to Plaintiffs’ failure to serve a timely NOC on Defendant County. Some discussion is appropriate regarding the nature of the dismissal in this action. Ordinarily, “[w]here it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely to be productive,…it is not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.” Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).3 “[A]n opportunity to amend is not required where the defects in the plaintiff’s claims are substantive rather than merely formal, such that any amendment would be futile.” Sorrentino v. Barr Labs. Inc., 09-CV-0591, 2010 WL 2026135, at *5 (May 20, 2010 N.D.N.Y.) (Suddaby, C.J.). However, where the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim, it lacks the power to dismiss that claim with prejudice (even if the Court were to find that, as here, better pleading would not cure Plaintiffs’ claims). For this reason, each of Plaintiffs’ NYSHRL claims against Defendant County are dismissed without prejudice. 2. Claims Against Individual Defendants For reasons similar to those stated above in Part III.B.1. of this Decision and Order, the Court finds that both Plaintiffs also failed to serve a NOC on Defendants York and Maday within ninety days after their claims arose. Granted, “[b]y its plain language, [N.Y. County Law] Section 52 applies to any action brought against the County.” Henneberger v. City of Nassau, 465 F. Supp. 2d 176, 199 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). “It is well settled that the failure to file a notice of claim bars state claims against individual defendants sued in their official capacities.” Brooks v. Cty. of Nassau, 54 F. Supp. 3d 254, 258 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). “However, as for state claims against an individual defendant in his individual capacity, ‘service of a notice of claim is not a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a county’s employees or agents unless the county is required to indemnify the individual defendants.’” Brooks, 54 F. Supp. 3d at 258 (quoting Olsen v. Cty. of Nassau, 05-CV-3632, 2008 WL 4838705, at *4 [E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2008]). Thus, a county’s duty to indemnify turns on whether the defendant was acting within his or her scope of employment. Id. In this case, Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to plead facts plausibly suggesting that either individual Defendant acted outside the scope of his official duties (and in his own personal interest) when interacting with either Plaintiff. Instead, Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges facts plausibly suggesting that each action taken by Defendants York and Maday was taken within the scope of their employment. (Dkt. No. 1, at
