Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mechanical Corp.

1 Citing case

  1. Warburton v. John Jay Coll. of Criminal Justice of the City Univ. of N.Y.

    14-CV-9170 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 2016)   Cited 4 times
    Explaining that, in the absence of at least some "supporting factual allegations" detailing a plaintiff's comparators and how they were treated differently, a court cannot draw "even the minimal inference of discriminatory intent needed to survive a motion to dismiss," and collecting cases

    "); Weslowski v. Zugibe, 14 F. Supp. 3d 295, 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ("[A]lthough, [a]t the motion to dismiss stage . . . evidence [of similarly situated comparators] is not necessary[,] . . . a court still must determine whether, based on a plaintiff's allegations in the complaint, it is plausible that a jury could ultimately determine that the comparators are similarly situated." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Henry, 18 F. Supp. 3d at 409 (dismissing a disparate treatment claim where plaintiff failed "to identify, let alone describe, any purported comparator"); Thompson v. New York City, 12-CV-8043, 2013 WL 6409326, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2013); see also Lopez v. Advantage Plumbing & Mech. Corp., No. 15-CV-4507, 2016 WL 1268274, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016). Absent from the Second Amended Complaint is any detail about Warburton's white peers, their academic and scholarship credentials, when they were granted tenure, or how the standards applied to Warburton's application differed from those applied to his white peers.