The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bumb, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Mary Anne Wolf ("Plaintiff") alleges six causes of action in her complaint (the "Complaint" or "Compl.")*fn1 , all arising out of her termination from Defendant PRD Management, Inc. ("PRD"), her former employer. She alleges:
Count 1: age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") against PRD;
Count 2: age discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD") against PRD;
Count 3: age discrimination in violation of NJLAD against Defendant James McGrath ("McGrath");
Count 4: age discrimination in violation of LAD against Defendant Karin McGrath Dunn ("Dunn");
Count 5: intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") against Defendants PRD Management, James McGrath, and Karin McGrath Dunn (collectively the "Defendants"); and Count 6: negligent infliction of emotional distress against Defendants. See generally Compl.
Defendants have moved to dismiss counts 2 through 6 based on the applicable statutes of limitations, as well as on other grounds. Because counts 2 through 6 are, in fact, time-barred, Defendants' motion for dismissal of these counts is GRANTED on this basis and the Court need not address Defendants' remaining arguments for dismissal. Defendants have also moved to strike Plaintiff's claim for punitive and emotional damages to the extent those damages are premised on Count 1 of the Complaint. That motion is also granted.
Plaintiff was born on January 17, 1942. Compl. ¶ 2.
Plaintiff became an employee of PRD in 1991. Compl. ¶ 19. Plaintiff was employed as the Administrator at MSAA Manor, a PRD managed property from 1995 until April 21, 2008. Compl. ¶ 20. In January of 2008, Plaintiff informed McGrath and her supervisor Scott Schaeffer that she planned to retire in two years and asked for a $3.00/hour raise in order to prepare for retirement. Compl. ¶ 24. McGrath, upon learning of Plaintiff's plans, proclaimed that he did not know that Plaintiff was "that old." Compl. ¶ 25. On April 17, 2008, Plaintiff was called to a meeting with McGrath and Dunn where she was informed that her employment was being terminated as of April 21, 2008. Compl. ¶ 27. At the time of the meeting, Plaintiff was 66 years old. Compl. ¶ 31. Prior to the meeting, Plaintiff had not received any warnings or adverse employee evaluation, nor had she received any discipline. Compl. ¶ 28. During the meeting, Plaintiff was told that she was a "risk" to PRD and was given four reasons for her termination. Compl. ¶¶ 29-30. Plaintiff alleges that the reasons given during the meeting were "merely a pretext for the real motivation...." Compl. ¶ 31. Plaintiff also alleges that McGrath and Dunn took improper action in an effort to support the pretext for her termination. Compl. ¶ 32.
On or about January 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleging acts of discrimination under both the ADEA and NJLAD. Compl. ¶ 16. On or about February 11, 2011, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Notice of ...