DECISION AND ORDER I. Introduction Before this Court is a Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e to 2000e-17, employment discrimination and retaliation action wherein an African American former employee claims he was terminated by Defendant Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (“NFTA” or the “Authority”) based on his race and retaliated against for lodging complaints. This is the second action arising from Plaintiff’s employment with the Authority, see Fabor v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Auth, No. 18CV1463 (hereinafter “Fabor, No. 18CV1463″; the present action will be cited by docket entries). In Fabor, No. 18CV1463, Plaintiff alleged violations of Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act for discipline NFTA imposed upon Plaintiff. That case was dismissed without prejudice on stipulation during the pendency of this action, Fabor, No. 18CV1463, Docket No. 5 (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Dec. 16, 2020). In the present action, Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully removed as Senior Grounds Person I and denied promotion or reinstatement. He also complains that he was summarily discharged in March 2019 for sundry violations of NFTA rules (see Docket No. 1, Compl.). Defendant NFTA moved to dismiss (Docket No. 51) and, after the parties responded to that motion (Docket Nos. 9, 10), NFTA then filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 112). For reasons that follow, Defendant NFTA’s initial Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 5) is granted and the matter remanded to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) for further proceedings. With this remand, this Court takes no position on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 11) and terminates the Motion as moot. II. Background A. Facts Alleged in Complaint For the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff admitted to most of the facts stated in NFTA’s Statement (compare Docket No. 17, Pl. Statement with Docket No. 11, Def. Statement), but the parties dispute personnel issues and decisions made leading to Plaintiff’s termination. Plaintiff denies any violation of NFTA rules and policies (e.g., Docket No. 17, Pl. Statement 5). This Court will cite to the Complaint (applicable for the pending Motion to Dismiss) and NFTA’s Statement of Material Facts (Docket No. 11) and note, when pertinent, Plaintiff’s objections. According to the Complaint in the present action, Plaintiff was an employee of the NFTA, ultimately working as Grounds Person I (Docket No. 1, Compl.
8-12; see Docket No. 11, Def. Statement
