In Famighette v. Joseph Rose and Town of Huntington, 17-cv-2553, 2018 WL 2048371 (E.D.N.Y. May 2, 2018), the court, inter alia,The court also denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. dismissed plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim asserted on a theory of “sex stereotyping.”
In sum, plaintiff – a 56 year old woman – alleged that she suffered discrimination when she was terminated and replaced with another woman, Bologna, “only because she was younger, more attractive, and more receptive to [defendant Joseph Rose’s] attention.”
The court distinguished a case cited by plaintiff in which a woman was discharged and replaced by two men, whereas here plaintiff was replaced by another woman; “[t]his is a key distinction in a case about gender discrimination.”
Citing Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), the court explained that “[a] plaintiff may … show that an employment decision was based on gender by proffering evidence of sexual stereotyping.”
Plaintiff was unable to establish that theory here:
Here, there is no evidence before the Court that Defendants engaged in sex stereotyping. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants discuss any statements made to or about Plaintiff, other than Plaintiff’s assertion that she served with “distinction and commendation.” While Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that “from the time she started, [ ] Bologna received undue attention from the other male staff members of the office … especially Defendant, Joseph Rose,” this statement alone is not suggest an inference of gender discrimination. There are no other statements in either the Complaint or any of the motion papers with even a whiff of sex stereotyping.
Therefore, plaintiff “failed to allege facts suggesting an inference of gender discrimination under Title VII against the Town.”
|↩1||The court also denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.|