The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Paul A. Crotty, United States District Judge:
Arnold M. Wachtel ("Plaintiff") sues the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and Amtrak ("Defendants") under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and for breach of contract.
In April 2007, Plaintiff applied for a police officer position with Defendants. (Am. Compl. ¶ 16.) On June 13, 2007, Plaintiff received notification from Defendants that he had been "conditionally selected" for the position, but the "offer is contingent" on Plaintiff passing a background check and a medical and psychological examination. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 26; Embry Decl. Ex. B.) After his background check was completed, Plaintiff was informed that he would be placed on a "ready to hire list." (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff waited to be scheduled for psychological and medical examinations. (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff contacted Defendants on multiple occasions to inquire about the status of his candidacy. (Id. ¶¶ 19-20.) Plaintiff was allegedly told, in essence, that they would not schedule him for the required examinations because he was "too old" for the position. (Id. ¶ 24; see also ¶ 24.) In sum, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed age discrimination and materially breached an alleged contract with Plaintiff.
On January 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants. On June 6, 2011, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, which the Court granted on July 29, 2011, with leave to amend. The Court held that Plaintiff failed to allege that a contract existed because Plaintiff failed to either (1) allege that he satisfied all of the conditions precedent to formation of the contract, or (2) explain why Plaintiff is excused from completing such conditions precedent. On August 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, alleging that he did not complete the physical and mental examinations-which were conditions precedent to the contract-because Defendants prevented him from doing so. (Id. ¶ 26.) On October 26, 2011, Defendants again moved to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"Ashcroft
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when "the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id.
In considering a motion to dismiss, a court may consider the pleadings, but may also consider documents "integral to the complaint," or documents necessarily relied on by the plaintiff in drafting the complaint. Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007) (emphasis and citation omitted). As a result, the Court will consider the June 13, 2007 Conditional Offer of Employment letter which Defendants submitted along with their motion to ...