Opinion
No. 03 Civ. 4390 (LTS)(FM)
October 24, 2003
ORDER
The Complaint in this case alleges that Plaintiff's employment was terminated by Defendant in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621- 634 (West 1999 and Supp. 2003), and Section 296 of the New York Executive Law (McKinney 2001 Supp. 2003). Defendant moves pursuant to Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order dismissing the Complaint. The Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1367. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is denied.
The Court's task in evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to take as true the facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Grandon v. Merrill Lynch Co., 147 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir. 1998). The action must not be dismissed 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.'" Cohen v. Koenig. 25 F.3d 1168, 1172 (2d Cir. 1994) (quotingConlev v. Gibson. 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). Furthermore, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). "Such a statement must simply 'give the defendant fair notice of what the Plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citing Conlev v. Gibson. 355 U.S. at 47).
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was 60 years old at the time his employment was terminated, and that he was discharged because of his age. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendant's nepotism policies were applied to Plaintiff "as a means of singling him out because of because of his age." (Compl. ¶ 29.) Accordingly, the Complaint provides Defendant with fair notice of Plaintiff s claims and the grounds upon which they rest and thus satisfies Rule 8. Moreover, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, it does not appear beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts in support of his claims which would entitle him to relief. Defendant's motion is therefore denied.
SO ORDERED.