Wilson v. Long Ridge Post Acute Care

── Wilson v. Long Ridge Post Acute Care ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 09, 2026 Category: General 23-1232-cv Wilson v. Long Ridge Post Acute Care UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 9th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ TRAVIS WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 23-1232 LONG RIDGE POST ACUTE CARE, MARION NAJAMY, Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Travis Wilson, pro se, Stamford, Connecticut. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Maura A. Mastrony and Emily A. Zaklukiewicz, Littler Mendelson, P.C., New Haven, Connecticut.  Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Victor A. Bolden, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court, entered on August 23, 2023, is AFFIRMED. Travis Wilson, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his employment-discrimination action as time-barred, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Wilson commenced this action against his former employer, Defendant-Appellee Long Ridge Post Acute Care, as well as his supervisor, Defendant-Appellee Marion Najamy (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging discrimination based on age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”), as well as race, color, sex, and national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred and on several other grounds. The district court granted the motion under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that the ADEA and Title VII claims were time-barred. See Wilson v. Long Ridge Post Acute Care, No. 3:22-CV-194 (VAB), 2023 WL 2072510, at *8–9 (D. Conn. Feb. 17, 2023). In addition, the district court determined that Wilson (1) had failed to plausibly allege that his termination was motivated by discriminatory reasons, and (2) could not state a claim under the ADEA because he was under 40 years of age at the time of his termination. Id. at *9. However, the district court granted leave to amend as to the Title VII claims to address the deficiencies. Id. Wilson filed an amended complaint, which Defendants again moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, explaining that it failed to include any new allegations or 2 address the timeliness issue identified in the prior ruling. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts