CHARLESTON (LN) — U.S. District Judge Bruce H. Hendricks on May 19, 2026, denied Walden University's motion to dismiss an age discrimination lawsuit filed by former employee Richard M. Arboscello, ruling that the plaintiff's amended complaint contained sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Arboscello alleged that Walden University violated the ADEA and the Fair Labor Standards Act by terminating him because of his age. (ECF No. 14.)

The university moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the pleading failed to meet the requisite standard for plausibility. (ECF No. 19.)

The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings. On October 15, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court deny the university's motion, finding Arboscello's allegations sufficient to survive dismissal. (ECF No. 26.)

Walden University filed objections to the report on October 29, 2025, and Arboscello filed a reply on November 12, 2025. (ECF Nos. 29, 30.)

In its objections, the university argued the magistrate judge failed to address the ADEA's "but-for" causation standard and improperly relied on conclusory allegations that did not plausibly plead age discrimination. (ECF No. 29 at 2-6.)

Hendricks conducted a de novo review of the objections and determined they were unavailing.

The judge noted that the magistrate judge correctly explained the applicable law, which prohibits an employer from discriminating against or terminating a person who is at least 40 years of age because of that age.

Hendricks pointed to Arboscello's EEOC charge, in which he alleged the university discriminated against him "due to his age" and terminated him "due to his age." (ECF No. 14 at 2; ECF No. 26 at 4.)

Furthermore, the amended complaint specifically alleges that "Plaintiff was fired because of his age," the judge wrote. (ECF No. 14 at 4.)

Contrary to the university's assertion that the plaintiff merely alleged he was replaced by a younger employee, Hendricks determined Arboscello specifically alleged discrimination and termination because of his age.

Regarding the second objection that the magistrate judge overlooked the conclusory nature of the allegations, Hendricks agreed with the magistrate judge's assessment.

After accepting the factual allegations in the complaint as true, the court determined the amended complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for age discrimination that is plausible on its face.

Accordingly, Hendricks overruled the university's objections and denied the motion to dismiss.

The case remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.