The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued an important decision in a case
that presented the question of what a plaintiff asserting employment discrimination under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must allege to plead the existence of an employer‐employee
The United States Tennis Association (“USTA”) contracts with security firms that employ
and assign security guards to work at USTA events – most notably, the U.S. Open Tennis
Championship (“U.S. Open”). In 2016, AJ Squared Security (“AJ Security”), a security firm, hired the
plaintiff as a security guard and assigned him to work at the 2016 U.S. Open.
On August 29, 2016, the plaintiff’s AJ Security supervisor sent the plaintiff to pick up his
security credentials from the USTA. The plaintiff alleged, however, that the USTA refused to issue
his security credentials, thereby prohibiting him from working at the U.S. Open. The plaintiff sued
the USTA for employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Among other things, he
alleged that the USTA denied his credentials in retaliation for a lawsuit that he had previously filed
in 2012 against CSC Security Services (“CSC”), another firm providing security to the USTA.
a proper case of employment discrimination or retaliation because the USTA was not the plaintiff’s
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the USTA’s motion to
dismiss. The district court determined that the plaintiff had not stated a claim under...
In 2025, U.K. insurers found fewer bogus claims than in 2024, but the cases they intercepted tended to involve more money. According to The Independent, insurers stopped 1.34 billion (about $1.77 ...