Sarowitz files a motion to dismiss Celeste Smith's complaint

本站添加: 2026-05-19

[00:00:04]All right. Hey guys, we've now got some new filings in the Celeste Smith case against Steve Sarac Wayfarer Foundation and Wayfarer Pathways.

[00:00:14]Um So, each of the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. These are incredibly brief motions to dismiss. They've done them individually, not as one. Um and they're only about what two or three pages long each. So, I was just going to go through them like one at a time.

[00:00:36]Um start with Steve Sarac.

[00:00:39]Okay.

[00:00:40]Now comes defendant Steve Sarac individually and through his attorneys for his motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12b1 and Rule 12b6.

[00:00:53]In support defendant states as follows.

[00:00:57]On February 20th, 2026 plaintiff Celeste Smith filed a complaint against defendant Sarac.

[00:01:06]Therein, plaintiff asserted seven causes of action against Sarac including one, sex-based discrimination and race-based discrimination.

[00:01:17]Two, retaliation and retaliatory harassment.

[00:01:21]Three, violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

[00:01:27]Four, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

[00:01:32]Five, discrimination in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act based on age, race, religion, gender, and disability.

[00:01:40]So, we have them all.

[00:01:43]We have them all. The only thing I think is missing is sexuality.

[00:01:49]Um and then six, retaliation under the Illinois Human Rights Act. And seven, promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel under Illinois law.

[00:02:02]Critically, dismissal of Sarver is warranted as the law is unequivocal but there is no individual liability under Title VII, the American Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or the Illinois Human Rights Act.

[00:02:21]Moreover, even assuming arguendo, the court were to find in plaintiff's IHRA claims alleged in counts five and six applied to Sarver in his individual capacity, plaintiff fails to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

[00:02:45]Furthermore, plaintiff's promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel claims in count seven likewise fail as plaintiff fails to allege Sarver made any unambiguous promise or misrepresentation to her, which is required to state a viable claim.

[00:03:04]Accordingly, dismissal with prejudice is warranted as to all claims against defendant Steve Sarver individually pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1).

[00:03:17]Wherefore, defendant Steve Sarver respectfully requests that this honorable court enter a order granting his motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) with costs assessed against the plaintiff and any other relief to which the court deems equitable and just.

[00:03:39]Okay, so what they're saying is is all of these things, he cannot be pursued as an individual.

[00:03:45]Um and therefore, you know, the court should not even entertain the causes of action against him individually.

[00:03:55]So, now we'll go on to the um entities.

[00:04:01]Start with Wayfair Foundation.

[00:04:07]Um yeah, okay.

[00:04:10]Now comes defendant, the Wayfair Foundation, by and through its attorneys for its motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).

[00:04:24]In support, defendant states as follows.

[00:04:27]On February 20th, 2026, plaintiff, Celeste Smith, filed a complaint against defendant Foundation.

[00:04:35]Therein, plaintiff asserted seven causes of action against the Foundation, including one, sex-based discrimination and race-based discrimination. Two, retaliation and retaliatory harassment.

[00:04:48]Three, violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

[00:04:52]Four, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

[00:04:57]Five, discrimination in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act based on age, race, religion, gender, and disability.

[00:05:07]Six, retaliation under the Illinois Human Rights Act. And seven, promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel under Illinois law. Okay, so all the same causes of action under the same laws.

[00:05:25]The Foundation was a non-profit organization that closed its doors on July 1st, 2025, which was announced on May 2nd, 2025 when plaintiff and other members were separated from employment.

[00:05:37]Yeah, it's um going to be quite an impressive feat for her to sue a foundation that does not even exist anymore.

[00:05:52]Plaintiff's complaint against the foundation warrants dismissal in its entirety as it is a paradigmatic example of a conclusory pleading that strings together nearly every conceivable employment-related claim.

[00:06:05]>> [laughter] >> Which is what That's what I said, we've got nearly all of them.

[00:06:10]Without supplying the factual allegations required to state any of them.

[00:06:16]Plaintiff relies on vague, generalized allegations of speculation and formulaic recitations of legal elements in counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

[00:06:34]Additionally, plaintiff fails to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies for counts 5 and 6 in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

[00:06:47]To begin, plaintiff's race-based, sex-based, and religion-based discrimination claims alleged in count 1 are deficient as a matter of law as plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support that any adverse employment action occurred because of plaintiff's protected characteristics.

[00:07:08]The fact that she is African-American, female, and Muslim.

[00:07:14]In that same vein, plaintiff's retaliation and retaliatory harassment claims set forth in count 2 likewise failed as a matter of law.

[00:07:23]And plaintiff fails to allege that she suffered an adverse employment action for engaging in a protected activity.

[00:07:31]Additionally, plaintiff's Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim fails in Sorry. Additionally, plaintiff's Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim in count three fails because plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that age was the but-for cause of her separation.

[00:07:56]And I will just like I find it wild that she's saying that she's been let go because of her age when you know, I mean she was only hired a couple of years before. It's not like she's been with the company for years and years and years and aged. You know, they they don't forget they went headhunting for her. They sought her out. She didn't apply to them. They went looking for her.

[00:08:25]And it's not like her age had substantially changed cuz she'd only been there like a couple of years if that. So in which time she had, you know, several promotions. So I don't know why they would she would then say, well, they got rid of me cuz I'm too old cuz she was pretty much the same age when they specifically sought her out to hire her.

[00:08:50]Um it doesn't make sense. I can't compute it and I just Yeah, I just don't like it.

[00:08:58]Um Moreover, plaintiff's Americans with Disabilities Act claim alleged in count four fails as plaintiff alleges only a short-term injury. Yeah.

[00:09:14]From a fall that does not qualify as a disability under the ADA.

[00:09:18]And even if it did, plaintiff concedes she received the accommodations she requested and alleged and fails to allege her disability was the but-for cause of her separation. Exactly. I think she fell. She thought she had fractured her ribs, if I remember correctly, but she hadn't actually. She just thought had. Um and she she you know, in theory she would have recovered quite quickly from an injury like that.

[00:09:45]Um it's not, you know, a a long-term um health issue that's going to, you know, cause a detriment. So, it should not qualify as a disability. I think I went through all of that and the definition of disability, etc. in my video when I went through her complaint. I had a lot of problems with her complaint.

[00:10:10]Um Okay, let's continue.

[00:10:14]Furthermore, plaintiff asserts state law claims of promissory and equitable estoppel in count seven that fail as a matter of law because plaintiff fails to establish that an unambiguous promise, misrepresentation, or concealment of material fact was made to her by the the foundation.

[00:10:35]Only that a generalized statement was made regarding the anticipated longevity of the foundation.

[00:10:44]Lastly, dismissal of counts five and six is warranted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12b1 as plaintiff brings claims under the Illinois Human Rights Act, which is improper as plaintiff failed to allege that she exhausted the mandatory administrative prerequisites.

[00:11:06]Accordingly, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against the foundation is warranted in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12b6 and 12b1.

[00:11:16]Wherefore, defendant, The Wayfair Foundation, respectfully requests that this honorable court enter an order granting its motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12b 6 and 12b1 with costs assessed against the plaintiff and any other relief to which this court seems just and equitable and just.

[00:11:39]Okay.

[00:11:41]So, they are going to be pursuing costs against her.

[00:11:45]Uh we have Wayfarer Pathways.

[00:11:48]I'm expecting it to be quite similar, but you know, we're here, so let's go through it anyway.

[00:11:55]Uh it's again, it's very short.

[00:11:59]Uh now comes defendant Wayfarer Pathways by and through its attorneys for its motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12b1 and 12b6.

[00:12:11]In support, defendant states as follows.

[00:12:15]On February 20th, 2026, plaintiff Celeste Smith filed a complaint against defendant Pathways.

[00:12:22]Therein, plaintiff asserted seven causes of action against Pathways including one, sex-based discrimination and race-based discrimination. Two, retaliation and retaliatory harassment.

[00:12:34]Three, violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

[00:12:38]Four, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

[00:12:42]Five, discrimination in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act based on age, race, religion, gender, and disability.

[00:12:52]Six, retaliation under the Illinois Human Rights Act. And seven, promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel under Illinois law.

[00:13:04]Critically, Pathways was not plaintiff's employer.

[00:13:09]And there are no facts alleged to support that it was.

[00:13:13]Instead, plaintiff improperly relies on group pleadings by lumping together defendants without identifying that Pathways actually employed plaintiff or provided any factual basis for treating both entities as plaintiff's employer.

[00:13:30]As such, plaintiff's complaint against Pathways warrants dismissal in its entirety because plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that Pathways was her employer, and the allegations set forth in the complaint itself undermine any such conclusion.

[00:13:45]Furthermore, plaintiff fails to allege exhaust exhaustion of administrative remedies for counts five and six in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12b1.

[00:13:57]Lastly, plaintiff asserts state law claims of promissory and equitable estoppel in count seven that fails as a matter of law because plaintiff fails to establish that an unambiguous promise, misrepresentation, or concealment of material fact was made to her by Pathways, only that a generalized statement was made regarding the anticipated longevity of the Wayfarer Foundation.

[00:14:25]Accordingly, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against Pathways is warranted in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12b6 and 12b1.

[00:14:37]Wherefore, defendant Wayfarer Pathways respectfully requests that this honorable court enter an order granting its motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12b1 and 12b6, with costs assessed against the plaintiff, and any other relief to which this court deems equitable and just.

[00:14:58]Okay. So, it was not similar at all.

[00:15:01][laughter] Um to summarize those three responses. So, Sarowitz is saying, "Hey, I need to be dismissed because, you know, as an individual, I cannot be sued."

[00:15:12]Okay.

[00:15:13]Um that's not trying to wriggle out on a technicality. If someone brings a lawsuit against you, they have to have the law on their side.

[00:15:22]You know, they've got to have a a valid legal claim in the first place. And you know, if if the law does not apply to you as an individual, then the first thing you should do is say, "Hey, you know, she can't sue me for this as an individual."

[00:15:40]Um she then has um has sued obviously Wayfair Foundation and Wayfair Pathways.

[00:15:50]Now, the foundation is saying, "Yes, we were her employer.

[00:15:53]But look, you know, she's basically come with Santa's list of every >> [laughter] >> employment related claim known to man.

[00:16:03]And they're so non-specific, and she has not, you know, stated She's not alleged facts that support her claims, etc. You know, she can't be dis- She now can't seriously be trying to claim under a disability act act for She can't seriously be trying to claim that she is disabled for the purposes of um Well, what is it? The Americans with Disabilities Act?

[00:16:31]Yeah, Americans with Disabilities Act.

[00:16:33]Um because, you know, being disabled is is more than, you know, having an in- a a minor injury that is not going to do any lasting damage. Being disabled means something.

[00:16:47]Um And when people sort of say, "Well, you know, I fell over and bruised my ribs and had a bit of time off work.

[00:16:54]They accommodated me, but, you know, then they you know, basically kind of terminated me because I was, you know, unable to work." Then that waters down the definition of what a disabled person is. And someone who had a a fall with a minor injury is trying to lump themselves into a a similar category as someone with say um I don't know, cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, you know, Down syndrome, a quadriplegic.

[00:17:29]And it's they're not the same thing.

[00:17:33]And there are obviously much uh Like those are, you know, in terms of physical disabilities, those examples are, you know, on the severe end. You know, having diabetes is a disability, multiple sclerosis, lupus, you know, these are disabilities that, you know, don't always, at every moment of the day, necessarily, you know, um cause all the pain or all the the health problems that come with them.

[00:18:05]They can be managed as well.

[00:18:07]But it's the unpredicted flare-ups. It's how time-consuming the management is. I have diabetes and lupus myself.

[00:18:16]You know, just the sheer regime is difficult.

[00:18:20]It's difficult to keep on track of. You know, it And disability um Like the accommodating someone with a disability is to allow for things like they might be in more pain, they might be more tired, they're going to have more hospital appointments, they're going to be taking some medication. And it's allowing reasonable adjustments for them to be able to manage their health.

[00:18:46]It is not intended for people who trip over and, you know, give themselves bruised ribs.

[00:18:56]And I it it That's And that's what I mean when I say trying to use it in this context almost waters it down.

[00:19:04]Um so I I'm glad about that. I also again, I make the same point. I already made the point, you know, but the age thing as well. She wasn't with the company for decades and had aged and now she you know, they were looking to replace her. She'd only been with them for um about 2 years, I think if that.

[00:19:23]So, um I don't understand why she thinks that she's been terminated because of her age cuz it's not like she was you know, a completely different age when they went headhunting her.

[00:19:38]Um Yeah, so I'm I'm I'm I like I like the motion to dismiss from the foundation. So, they're the ones who are going to probably be having to defend most vigorously cuz they were her employer. And then at the end then Pathways I mean, I don't even know why she is suing Pathways who was not her employer.

[00:20:02]Um I I I still haven't made sense of that because she hasn't actually alleged enough she hasn't pleaded sufficiently enough to explain herself.

[00:20:14]Why she is suing Pathways? So, all right. Um I will keep an eye on uh where we go next with this.

[00:20:25]I do ex- I would expect that Pathways and Sorority's motions to dismiss should be granted. I mean, she's got to reply to them. So, there's still going to be reply briefs.

[00:20:36]Um the foundation I'm on the fence it it the it may get dismissed at this point or there may be enough for um you know, the judge to say, "Hey, uh it needs to go to a jury."

[00:20:52]And then we'll we'll see where that goes.