Memorandum & Order Pending before the Court is a motion by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Bogdan Ostrowski’s employment discrimination action for failure to state a claim, which Defendant has moved the Court to convert to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff (who filed voluminous exhibits in support of his opposition to the motion) does not oppose Defendant’s request to convert the motion into one seeking summary judgment, but opposes dismissal on any and all claims. The Court has considered the parties’ written submissions; statements that the parties made at oral argument held on January 26, 2023; and over 1,400 pages of written exhibits and additional audio and video exhibits submitted by Plaintiff in support of his claims. For the reasons outlined herein, Defendant’s motion, construed as a motion for summary judgment, is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. Background On May 7, 2007, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“Defendant” or “The Port Authority”) hired Plaintiff Bogdan Ostrowski (“Plaintiff”) as an Electronic System Specialist (“ESS”).1 ECF No. 38-12 at 2; ECF No. 38-2 at 1.2 On June 25, 2020, after a series of disputes between Plaintiff and his supervisors, Defendant indefinitely suspended Plaintiff without pay. ECF No. 1-5 at 87, 90. This was Plaintiff’s sixth suspension since July 2019. ECF No. 1-5 at 87. I. Procedural Background Plaintiff, believing these disciplinary actions to be unlawful, contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (“EEOC”) and filed an “initial inquiry” through the EEOC’s online portal on December 14, 2020. ECF No. 21 at 12. After speaking with an EEOC representative on March 9, 2021, ECF No. 21 at 14, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination on March 16, 2021, alleging age discrimination and retaliation. ECF No. 21 at 9. The EEOC issued Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights on March 31, 2021, in which it informed Plaintiff that if he wished to proceed with his claim in a court, he must so file with 90 days. ECF No. 21 at 8. On June 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed this pro se action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) against Defendant. See ECF No. 1. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant subjected him to “harassment, negligence, [and] malpractice” due to his age. ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff served Defendant on the same day, ECF No. 5, and Defendant entered an appearance through counsel on June 23, 2023. ECF No. 7. After requesting and receiving an extension to file its answer in light of the many exhibits that Plaintiff attached to his complaint, ECF Nos. 8; 9, Defendant filed a letter motion for a pre-motion conference on September 2, 2021, in anticipation of its motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s action for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 16. In its letter motion, Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s action was time-barred because Plaintiff failed to file a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of the last allegedly discriminatory action (which took place on June 25, 2020), and that in any event Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim under the ADEA. ECF No. 16. On October 27, 2021, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom held a telephone conference and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to address the potential deficiencies that Defendant noted in its pre-motion conference letter. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on December 2, 2021, ECF No. 21, to which he attached a copy of the initial inquiry form that he submitted with the EEOC on December 14, 2020, as well as the Charge of Discrimination that he filed on March 16, 2021. In the complaint, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant “subjected Plaintiff to unprecedented [] egregious and unlawful predatory and retaliatory employment practices” which constitute “a clear trend and pattern of age, national origin, harassment, retaliation, hostile work environment and multifactor []discrimination.” ECF No. 21 at 24
