Scott-Monck v. Matrix Absence Mgmt. Inc.

Age Discrimination Not Plausibly Claimed; Retaliation Claim's Dismissal Explained

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff brings this pro se action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§621-634 and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), alleging that her former employer, Matrix Absence Management, Inc. (“Matrix”), discriminated against her because of her age and retaliated against her when she reported a superior’s age-related comments about another employee to Human Resources. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 10.) For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without prejudice. BACKGROUND The facts in this section are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1), construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and are presumed to be true for purposes of this motion. I. Factual Allegations Matrix, based in Hawthorne New York, handles various leave and absence claims — including short-term disability (“STD”) and Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave — for employers who are its clients. (Compl. 10.) Plaintiff began working for Matrix as an Integrated Claims Examiner on or about April 1, 2008, when she was approximately 58 years old. (Compl.

11, 12.) At the time of her hiring, there were approximately 13 other employees who, like Plaintiff, had previously worked for Verizon, all of whom were over the age of 50. (Compl. 12.) In or about 2012, Plaintiff was promoted to Integrated Claims Supervisor, a role in which she supervised a team of Integrated Claims Examiners and partnered with National Account Managers and clients. (Id.) In December 2016 or January 2017, Matrix hired as Director of Operations Donn Eric Foster (“Foster”), who was in his thirties and whose duties included overseeing the FMLA group, of which Plaintiff was a part. (Compl.

Scott-Monck v. Matrix Absence Mgmt. Inc.

Age Discrimination Not Plausibly Claimed; Retaliation Claim's Dismissal Explained

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal