Chuan Wang v. Palmisano (157 F. Supp. 3d 306, 2016)

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge

On April 1, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Chuan Wang (“Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint against Samuel J. Palmisano (“Palmisa-no”), Martin Schroeter (“Schroeter”), Mark Loughridge (“Loughridge”), and J. Randall MacDonald (“MacDonald”) (collectively “Defendants”), who at the relevant times were, respectively, the President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman; the Treasurer; the Chief Financial Officer and a Senior Vice President; and another Senior Vice President of International Business Machines Corp. (“IBM”). (See Compl. ¶¶2-5 (Dkt No. 1); Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2-5 (Dkt. No. 28).) On September 30, 2014, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs original complaint without prejudice. (See Op. & Order (Dkt. No. 25).) This Amended Complaint followed, alleging multiple claims under federal and state law relating to Plaintiffs employment, termination, and subsequent reapplication efforts at IBM. (See generally Am. Compl.) Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss all claims. (See Notice of Mot. To Dismiss Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 33).) For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is granted.

I. Background

A. Factual History

The following facts come from Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and, for purposes of resolving Defendants’ Motion, will be accepted as true. Plaintiff, who is Chinese American, is a 56-year-old American citizen. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff was educated in China through his undergraduate degree and also holds a PhD degree. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 100.) In addition, Plaintiff holds two U.S. patents that are relevant to “storage-area-networked computer storage technology.” (Id. ¶ 100.)

On February 1, 2008, Plaintiff received an email from Vishwadeep Sharma on behalf of Defendants soliciting Plaintiff for work. (See id. ¶ 14.) Artech Information Systems (“Artech”) arranged for Plaintiff to be interviewed by a team from IBM, and that interview occurred on February 22, 2008. (See id. ¶ 15.) Artech informed Plaintiff that he had the IBM job offer, and, “as requested [by] the employer,” Plaintiff provided a copy of his passport, which shows his birthdate of March 7, 1956, thereby indicating Plaintiffs age. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.) Artech told Plaintiff that his position would be full time, exclusively for IBM, and would last for at least one year. (See id. ¶ 18.) In addition, Artech forwarded Plaintiff a proposed employment, agreement, under which Plaintiff would be required to “surrender his ’rights to civil litigation’ and agree [to a] proposed Arbitration provision [under which] Plaintiff must agree to resolve employment disputes in New Jersey by the provisions of New Jersey Permanent Statutes Section 2A:24-1.” (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.) In addition, the employment agreement provided that:

If employee is terminated by the client for cause or employee- departs this assignment for any reason prior to the expiration of the probationary trial period or end of the project, Employee shall reimburse Artech for the amounts paid to employee as a draw during the probationary trial period. In that connection, employee acknowledges and understands that Artech will receive no payment for services performed hereunder by Employee from the proposed client if the proposed client terminates Employee during the probationary trial period.

(Id. ¶ 17.)

Plaintiff refused to enter into the agreement, contending that it would violate his rights under various employment laws, including the Massachusetts Wage Act (“Wage Act”) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). (Id.) With regard to overtime, Plaintiff was told that any overtime work would be deemed as voluntary work without .pay, unless it were approved in advance by his IBM supervisor. (Id. ¶ 18.) Artech told Plaintiff that he was an “exempt employee” because his work was “computer related” and that, as a result, he was not entitled to overtime pay for any overtime work performed. (Id. ¶ 19.)

Between February and April 2008, Plaintiff provided more than 158 hours of service to Artech. (Id. ¶ 20.) From March 11 to March 28, 2008, Plaintiff worked full-time and exclusively for IBM under its direction and control, reviewing and evaluating more than a thousand of Novartis Corp.’s computer storage systems,- as requested by IBM managers. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.) During that time, Plaintiff spent 112 regular hours and 46 overtime hours to perform his work for IBM. (Id ¶ 22.)

On; March 28, 2008, Plaintiff alleges, that his work was terminated by Defendants because he refused to give up his rights under the Wage Act and FLSA. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.) On April 4, 2008, Plaintiff submitted an unpaid wages request to Artech via email for the 112 regular-hour services that he performed. (Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiffs request did not seek pay for the overtime hours that he worked “[b]ecause he relied. on Artech’s representations and the fact that his overtime works, [sic] were not approved in advance.” (See id.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, Artech, and/or IBM repeatedly refused to pay Plaintiff the wages that he earned, despite Plaintiff filing complaints against Defendants with government agencies and writing a demand letter to Defendants for unpaid wages. (See id. ¶¶ 27-29.) •

Plaintiff has been unemployed and has received no unémployment compensation since April 2008 because Defendants made no contribution to unemployment insurance for Plaintiff. (See id. ¶¶ 25-26.) Between- sometime thereafter and 2012, Plaintiff submitted applications for “about a hundred” jobs with IBM. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 30, 40,) Of those job applications, Plaintiff indicates that many were made through. CDI Corporation . (“CDI”)- and that many were directly mailed to the Defendants many times. (Id ¶ 31.) Plaintiff provides a few examples: On July 19, 2011, Plaintiff sent an e-mail communication to CDI concerning a job that IBM sought to fill, and also sent Palmisano and MacDonald a letter with his job application and a copy of his passport. (Id.) Later, on January 11, 2012, Plaintiff sent another email communication to CDI concerning a position with IBM and sent a letter with his job application and a copy of his passport, this time, to Palmisano, Schroeter, Loughridge, and MacDonald. (Id.)

Plaintiff maintains that, of the job applications he submitted, “IBM repeatedly rejected each and every [one] ... for more than [four] years until 2012.” (Id. ¶ 34.) For instance, on January 21, 2009, Alonna Ferris of CDI told Plaintiff via e-mail that IBM did not ask CDI to extend a job offer to Plaintiff. (Id) On another occasion, on November 29, 2011, after receiving Plaintiffs job applications, Kelli Jordan, on behalf of Defendants, sent Plaintiff an e-mail with a subject line that read “[y]our correspondence to Sam Palmisano of IBM” which did not include a job offer and which effectively rejected Plaintiffs applications. (Id. ¶ 31.) On yet another occasion, Plaintiff — presumably unsuccessfully — interviewed for five separate positions with IBM managers Stephen Wheatley, Gina Koppel, Ramakrishna Talkad, Janet Hamilton, and Linda Foster, all of which had similar job requirements as the work that Plaintiff had performed for IBM in March 2008 and for which Plaintiff consequently believed he was well qualified. (See id ¶¶ 32-33.) Decisions to reject Plaintiffs work applications were made by IBM, rather than CDI. (Id ¶ 34.)

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff has filed a number of claims against Defendants in both state and federal court as well as with various state agencies. First, on April 14, 2008, Plaintiff filed a wage complaint with the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 72; Mem. in Supp. of Mot. To‘Dismiss Am. Compl. (“Defs.’ Mem”) 5 (Dkt. No. 34); Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 4 (April 14, 2008 Letter to Attorney General).) Next, on September 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed another wage complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney General. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 11; Defs.’ Mem. 6; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 5 (NonPayment of Wage and Workplace Complaint Form).) Later, on January 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 35; Defs.’ Mem. 6; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 6 (Charge of Discrimination Form).) Plaintiff never received a right-to-sue letter. (Am. Compl. ¶ 35; Defs.’ Mem. 6.)

Plaintiff brought his first lawsuit in connection with his work for IBM the following month, when, on Fébruary 12, 2009, he filed a complaint against IBM and Artech for unpaid wages and retaliatory termination against Defendants in Massachusetts state court. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 36; Defs.’ Mem. 6; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 9 (Mar. 18, 2009 State Court Am. Compl.).) That complaint was dismissed on the grounds of improper-jurisdiction. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 36; Defs.’ Mem. 6-7.) Later, however, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed that decision to dismiss without prejudice instead. See. Wang v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 924 N.E.2d 334, at *1 (Mass.App.Ct. 2010).

Next, on March 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint of employment discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”). (Am. Compl. ¶ 37; Defs.’ Mem. 6; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 7 (Mar. 16, 2009 MCAD Complaint).) Also, on or around March 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint of employment retaliation with the Massachusetts Attorney General. (Am. Compl. ¶ 38; Defs.’ Mem. 6; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 8 (Mar. 16, 2009 Letter to Attorney General).)

On November 25, 2009, Plaintiff returned to the courts to file another complaint, which he amended on January 10, 2010, against IBM, Palmisano, Lough-ridge, as well as Artech and its president, Ranjini Poddar (“Poddar”), in Massachusetts Superior Court. (See Am. Compl. ¶42; Am. Compl. Attach. 2 (State Court Docket); Defs.’ Mem. 7; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 10 (Jan. 21, 2010 Am. Compl.) ¶¶ 1-6.) That complaint alleged 11 causes of action arising out of the same events that form the basis for Plaintiffs current Complaint. (See Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 10 (Jan. 21, 2010 Am. Compl.) ¶¶ 50-126.) On September 30, 2010, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with respect to all claims against the individual defendants but denied the motion with respect to IBM and Artech. (See Am. Compl. If 43; Defs.’ Mem. 7; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 11 (Superior Court Docket), at unnumbered 7-8 (indicating that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted as to Palmi-sano, Loughridge, and Poddar).) On October 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of his intent to file a motion to request a separate and final judgment with respect to the individual defendants. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 43; Am. Compl. Attach. 1 (Suppl. to Mem. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. To Dismiss Compl. (“Pl.’s Suppl. Mem.”)) 5.) Plaintiff then filed that motion on November 3, 2010, and the court denied it on November 15, 2010. (See PL’s Suppl. Mem. 5; Am, Compl. Attach. 2 (State Court Docket).) On July 28, 2011, the court granted Ar-tech’s and IBM’s motions for summary judgment with respect to all 11 counts. (See Defs.’ Mem. 7; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 12 (Superior Court Opinion), at unnumbered 12-13.) On August 11, 2011, Plaintiff appealed the court’s decisions, and, on July 25, 2012, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to nine of the 11 claims but reversed the lower court’s decision concerning the other two counts. (See Am. Compl. ¶43; Defs.’ Mem. 7-8; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 13 (July 25, 2012 Appeals Court Opinion), at 3.) In addition, the Appeals Court modified the superior court’s dismissal of the individual defendants on personal jurisdiction grounds to be without prejudice. (Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 13 (July 25, 2012 Appeals Court Opinion), at 3.) Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court declined further appellate review on February 28, 2013. (Am. Compl. ¶ 48.) See also Wang v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 464 Mass. 1107, 984 N.E.2d 295 (2013). According to the superior court’s docket, on March 7, 2013, the rescript was received from the appeals court, remanding the case to the superior court. (See Mem. in Opp’n to Defs.’ 1/26/2015 Mot. To Dismiss Compl. (“Pl.’s Mem.”) Ex. A (State Court Docket), at 10 (Dkt. No. 35).) On August 8, 2012, Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought rehearing with respect to the appeals court’s decision. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 43.) On August 14, 2012, Plaintiff sought — again, unsuccessfully — further appellate review from Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court. (See id. ¶¶ 43-44.)

After the remand, the defendants proposed a settlement of $17,500 to Plaintiff, in exchange for which Plaintiff would dismiss the action with prejudice. (See Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 14 (Oct. 1, 2014 Appeals Court Decision), at 2.) A nisi dismissal was entered, but, two weeks later, Plaintiff moved to set it aside, claiming that the parties had not settled and that he was “framed” and “caught [in] a trap.” (See id. (internal quotation marks omitted).) Both the trial court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court refused to vacate the dismissal. (See id. (internal quotation marks omitted).)

On January 4, 2011, after the Massachusetts state court dismissed Plaintiffs claims against Palmisano, Loughridge, and Poddar, but before it granted summary judgment to IBM and Artech, Plaintiff filed yet another lawsuit — this one, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts — asserting 19 causes of action arising out of his employment relationship with IBM, Artech, and CDI. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 44; Defs.’ Mem. 8; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 15 (PL’s District of Massachusetts Second Am. Compl.) ¶¶ 45-193.) In addition to Palmisano, Loughridge, and Poddar, Plaintiffs amended complaint in the District of Massachusetts action named Schroeter, MacDonald, Robert C. Weber, Jesse J. Greene, Jr., and CDI as defendants. (See Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 15 (PL’s District of Massachusetts Second Am. Compl.) ¶¶ 2-9.) On December 9, 2011, the District Court dismissed all claims against the defendants and denied Plaintiffs motion to file a fourth amended complaint naming IBM and Artech as defendants. (See Defs.’ Mem. 9; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 16 (Dec. 9, 2011 D. Mass. Order), at 4, 13.) Plaintiff appealed, and, on December 10, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 46; Defs.’ Mem. 9; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 17 (Judgment of First Circuit).)

Next, on January 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second complaint in the District of Massachusetts, this time, against IBM, Artech, and CDI. (Defs.’ Mem. 9; see also Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 18 (Plaintiffs second District of Massachusetts complaint).) Plaintiff brought seven causes of action, all relating to Plaintiffs relationship with IBM, Ar-tech, and CDI. (See Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 18 (Plaintiffs second District of Massachusetts complaint) ¶¶ 46-115.) The District Court granted IBM’s and Artech’s motion to dismiss. (Defs.’ Mem. 9; see also Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 19 (Docket from Second District of Massachusetts action) at no. 26). The First Circuit affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari. (Defs.’ Mem. 9; see also Defs.’ Mem. Exs. 20-21.)

Finally, on April 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed his 10-count Complaint against Defendants in this Court. (See Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).) On September 30,2014, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (See Order & Opinion (Dkt. No. 25).) However, this Court also allowed Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint. (See id. at 35.) Plaintiff did so on November 27, 2014. (See Dkt. No. 28.) In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff • asserts 10 causes of action against Palmisano, Schroeter, Loughridge,. and MacDonald for (1) failure to pay Plaintiff a wages in accordance with Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, §§ 148, 150; (2) failure to pay Plaintiff wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act; ■ (3) unlawful discharge of Plaintiff in retaliation for seeking to enforce his rights under the Wage Act, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148A; (4) unlawful discharge of Plaintiff in retaliation for seeking rights under the FLSA; (5) unlawful refusal to hire Plaintiff in retaliation for seeking rights under the FLSA; (6) unlawful refusal to hire Plaintiff in retaliation for seeking to enforce his rights under the Wage Act, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148A; (7) unlawful refusal to hire Plaintiff based on his age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”); (8) unlawful refusal to hire Plaintiff based on his age, in violation of Massachusetts state law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4; (9) failure to pay Plaintiff ah overtime wage, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148, ch. 151, § 1A; and (10) failure to pay Plaintiff an overtime wage, in violation of the FLSA. -(See generally Am. Compl.) On January 26, 2015, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, along wijth an accompanying Memorandum of Law. (See . N. 3.) On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to Defendant’s Motion. (See Dkt. No. 35.) On March 10, 2015, Defendants filed their Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to their Motion to Dismiss. (See Dkt. No. 36.)

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, a complaint’s “[fjactual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level .... ” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Although “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint,” id. at 563, 127 S.Ct. 1955, and, although a plaintiff need only allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, if a plaintiff has not “nudged [his] claim[ ] across the line from conceivable to plausible, thef] complaint must be dismissed,” id.; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged — but it has not ’show[n]’ — ’that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” (second alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2))); id. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (“Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.”).

“[W]hen ruling on a defendant’s motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); see also Graham v. Macy’s Inc., No. 14-CV-3192, 2015 WL 1413643, at *1 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2015) (“For the purpose of resolving the motion to dismiss, the [cjourt assumes all well-pled facts to be true — ”). Further, “[fjor the purpose of resolving [a] motion to dismiss, the [cjourt ... draw[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Daniel v. T&M Prot. Res., Inc., 992 F.Supp.2d 302, 304 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.2014) (citing Koch v. Christie’s Int’l PLC, 699 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir.2012)). Additionally, “[i]n adjudicating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court must confine its consideration to facts stated on the face of the complaint, in documents appended to the complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken.” Leonard F. v. Isr. Disc. Bank of N.Y., 199 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hendrix v. City of N.Y., No. 12-CV-5011, 2013 WL 6835168, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2013) (same).

Lastly, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the’ Court must construe his pléadings liberally and “interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Maisonet v. Metro. Hosp. & Health Hosp. Corp., 640 F.Supp.2d 345, 347 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir.2006). However, the liberal treatment afforded to pro se litigants does not excuse a pro se party “from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Maisonet, 640 F.Supp.2d at 348 (internal quotation marks omitted).

B. Analysis

As with its predecessor, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs Amended .Complaint on several grounds, including that some of Plaintiffs claims are time barred and that the remaining causes of action fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted., (See Defs.’ Mem. 12-20.) Defendants aiso argue that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion. (See id. at 21-23.)

1. Claims That Accrued in March 2008

As with Plaintiffs original Complaint, most of the claims in the Amended Complaint relate to . the work that Plaintiff performed for IBM and his subsequent termination, all of which occurred in or before March .2008. (See Amended Compl. ¶¶20-23.) These claims either relate to Defendants’ alleged failure to pay wages owed to Plaintiff or to Plaintiffs allegedly retaliatory discharge. As before, both of these classes of claims arise under the FLSA or an analogous Massachusetts state-law provision.

a. Applicable Limitations Periods and Accrual Dates

Plaintiffs claims brought under the FLSA are subject to, at most, a thnee-year statute of limitations. See Parada v. Banco Indus. De Venez., C.A., 753 F.3d 62, 70 (2d Cir.2014) (“The FLSA provides a two-year statute of limitations on actions to enforce its provisions, ’except that a cause of action arising out of a willful violation may be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued.’” (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 255(a))). This two-year — or, in the ease of willful violations, three-year— statute of limitations applies to Plaintiffs FLSA wage-payment claim, see D’Arpa v. Runway Towing Corp., No. 12-CV-1120, 2013 WL 3010810, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2013), his FLSA overtime-wage claim, see Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352, 366 (2d Cir.2011), and his FLSA retaliatory-discharge claim, see Goodman v. Port Auth., No. 10-CV-8352, 2013 WL 5313427, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2013); Gonzalez v. El Acajutla Rest., Inc., No. 04-CV-1513, 2007 WL 869583, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2007).

For the reasons that follow, as before, a three-year statute of limitations applies to Plaintiffs state-law wage-payment and retaliatory-discharge claims and a two-year statute of limitations to Plaintiffs state overtime-wage claims. Where, as here, a federal court exercises diversity jurisdiction over a claim, that court “applies the forum state’s statute of limitations provisions, as well as any provisions that govern the tolling of the statute of limitations.” See Vincent v. Money Store, 915 F.Supp.2d 553, 562 (S.D.N.Y.2013); see also Schermerhorn v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 156 F.3d 351, 354 (2d Cir.1998) (“[The plaintiffs’] claim ... is governed by state law. We therefore look to state-law tolling rules to determine whether the statute of limitations was tolled .... ”). Under New York law, “when a nonresident plaintiff sues upon a cause of action that arose outside of New York, the court must apply the shorter limitations period, including all relevant tolling provisions, of either: (1) New York; or (2) the state where the cause of action accrued.” Stuart v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 158 F.3d 622, 627 (2d Cir.1998) (citing N.Y. C.P.L.R. 202); see also Mulo v. CBS Corp., 668 F.3d 53, 57 (2d Cir.2012) (same); Landow v. Wachovia Sec., LLC, 966 F.Supp.2d 106, 125 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (same); In re Coudert Bros. LLP, 673 F.3d 180, 190 (2d Cir.2012) (“To mitigate against abusive statute-of-limitations shopping, some states have created mechanisms — binding on the local federal courts via [Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941)] — that discriminate against claims accruing out of state. New York’s borrowing statute ... guards against forum shopping by out-of-state plaintiffs by mandating use of the shortest statute of limitations available.” (emphasis omitted)). Therefore, under New York’s borrowing statute, the Court will apply the shorter of New York’s statute of limitations and that of the state where Plaintiffs claim accrued.

As in its last Opinion and Order, the Court finds that, under New York law, Plaintiffs claim accrued in Massachusetts because Massachusetts was where Plaintiff resided at the time his injuries, which were economic, occurred. See Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v. RBS Holdings USA Inc., 14 F.Supp.3d 488, 501 (S.D.N.Y.2014) (“New York law dictates that ’a cause of action accrues at the time and in the place of the injury. When an alleged injury is purely economic, the place of injury usually is where the plaintiff resides and sustains the economic impact of the loss.”’ (citation omitted) (quoting Global Fin. Corp. v. Triarc Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 525, 693 N.Y.S.2d 479, 715 N.E.2d 482, 485 (1999))); see also IKB Int’l S.A. v. Bank of Am., No. 12-CV-4036, 2014 WL 1377801, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014) (“Where ... a claim is based on financial injury, the claim accrues where the plaintiff resides and sustains the economic impact of the loss.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), aff'd, 584 Fed.Appx. 26 (2d Cir.2014). Therefore, pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 202, the Court applies Massachusetts’ limitations periods of three and two years to Plaintiff’s wage-payment and overtime-wage claims, respectively, because they are shorter than New York’s six-year period for equivalent claims. Compare, e.g., Crocker v. Townsend Oil Co., 464 Mass. 1, 979 N.E.2d 1077, 1081-82, 1082 & n. 8 (2012) (noting that “a cause of action for the nonpayment of overtime [under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151, § 1A] must be brought within two years of the date it accrues[,]” but that “an employee claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of [Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148]” must bring an action “within [three] years after the violation” (internal quotation, marks omitted) (citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 150; id. at ch. 151, § 20A)), with N.Y. Lab. Law § 663(3) (six-year limitation period for wage claims), and Man Wei Shiu v. New Peking Taste Inc., No. 11-CV-1175, 2014 WL 652355, at *10 (E.D.N.Y Feb. 19, 2014) (noting that New York law “establishes a six-year limitations period” for wage claims). In this case,, however, the Court applies New York’s two-year limitations period to Plaintiffs retaliatory-discharge claim because it is shorter than Massachusetts’ three-year period for equivalent claims. Compare Crocker, 979 N.E.2d at 1082 n. 8 (noting three-year statute of limitations for claims brought under Ch. 149, § 148A) with N.Y. Lab. Law § 215(2)(a) (two-year limitation period for retaliatory-discharge claims), and United States ex rel. McKenna v. Senior Life Mgmt., Inc., 429 F.Supp.2d 695, 699 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (same).

Finally, for purposes of calculating the timeliness of Plaintiffs Complaint, the Court notes that Plaintiffs wage claims accrued each time Defendants allegedly failed to pay him at the end of’a pay period. See Nakahata v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 192, 198 (2d Cir.2013) (“The cause of action for FLSA ,,. claims accrues on the next regular -payday following the work period when services are rendered,”); Crocker, 979 N.E.2d at 1085 (noting that a plaintiff “suffer[s] [a] discrete injdr[y] each time [á defendant] fail[s] to pay [him] the wages [he] [was] owed under the Wage Act”); cf. Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 460 Mass. 484, 952 N.E.2d 890, 896 (2011) (“The Wage Act requires an employer to pay the wages earned to an employee within a fixed period of days after the end of a pay period.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148). And the Court notes that his retaliatory-discharge claims accrued on the date of his termination. See Goodman, 2013 WL 5313427, at *5.

b. Equitable Tolling

“The lapse of a limitations period is an affirmative defense that a defendant must plead and prove,” but “a defendant may raise an affirmative defense in a pre-answer Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the defense appears on the face of the complaint.” Staehr v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 547 F.3d 406, 425 (2d Cir.2008); see also Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 14 F.Supp.3d 191, 209 (S.D.N.Y.2014) (“Because the defendants bear the burden of establishing the expiration of the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, a pre-answer motion to dismiss on this ground may be granted only if it is clear on the face of the complaint that the statute of limitations has run.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he worked for IBM from- March 11, 2008 to March 28, 2008. (See Am. Compl, ¶21.) His claims, thus, accrued on approximately March 28, 2008, and, because Plaintiff filed the Complaint on April 1, 2013, his ’ claims are untimely, unless the statute of limitations has, for some reason, been tolled.

Plaintiff argues that his claim is, in fact, tolled under the doctrine of equitable tolling. (See Pl.’s Mem. 3-5; Pl.’s Suppl. Mem. 3-8.) Equitable tolling “allows a district court to toll the statute of limitations where, inter alia, a plaintiff initially asserted his rights in the wrong forum.” Polanco v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin., 158 F.3d 647, 655 (2d Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks and italics omitted); see also Danecker v. Bd., of Trs. of Serv. Emps. 32BJ N. Pension Fund, 882 F.Supp.2d 606, 612 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (noting that courts apply equitable tolling “as a, matter of fairness where a plaintiff ... has asserted his rights in the wrong forum” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). It is, however, an “exceedingly narrow” exception to the FLSA’s limitations regime. See Barrett v. Forest Labs., Inc., No. 12-CV-5224, 2015 WL 4111827, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2015). Indeed, “[t]o qualify for equitable tolling” on an FLSA claim, Plaintiff “must establish that extraordinary circumstances prevented [him] from filing [his] claim on time, and that [he] acted with reasonable diligence throughout the period [he] seeks to toll.” Parada, 753 F.3d at 71 (internal quotation marks omitted). Establishing both of these requirements is a “high burden” for a plaintiff. See Barrett, 2015 WL 4111827, at *3; see also Asp v. Milardo Photography, Inc., 573 F.Supp.2d 677, 697 (D.Conn.2008) (noting that “[a]n extraordinary circumstance might exist if the employee shows that it would have been impossible for a reasonably prudent person to learn of the cause of action or if the defendant concealed from the plaintiff the existence of the cause of action .... ” (citation omitted)); Patraker v. Council on Env’t, No. 02-CV-7382, 2003 WL 22703522, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2003) (declining to apply doctrine of equitable tolling while noting that “[the] plaintiff [did] not allege[ ], either in the amended complaint or in his declaration, any affirmative deception by the defendants,” but rather “complain[ed] only that the defendants never told him that he was entitled to overtime pay,” and that “[t]here is nothing extraordinary about that”).

Here, Plaintiff asserts a number of supposedly extraordinary circumstances that allegedly prevented him from asserting his complaint in the correct forum. To begin, Plaintiff stresses that he is a “pro se” plaintiff with “no legal training: [or] relevant knowledge.” (See Pl.’s Mem. 4; PL’s Suppl. Mem. 4 (“[A]s a pro se [plaintiff, [Plaintiff] has no legal knowledge and training in laws.”).) Additionally, Plaintiff argues that “Defendants intentionally and purposefully opposed Plaintiffs Motion for Separate and Final Judgment as to dismiss the Defendants on ground of lack of personal jurisdiction that prevented him from filing his appeal on time.” (See Pl.’s Mem. 4 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).) Next;- Plaintiff argues that the fact that “Plaintiff asserted his rights in the ’wrong’ forums was an ’extraordinary circumstance’ .... ” (See PL’s Suppl. Mem. 3.) Plaintiff also argues that he had to “to commence his complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney-General office, rather [than] the court,” and that he “had to file his complaint 90 days after the. filing of a complaint with the attorney general.” (See id. (internal quotation marks omitted).) In addition, Plaintiff argues, that the costs of asserting his claims in New York were “unaffordable”, and that his limited financial resources constitute an extraordinary circumstance. (See id. at 4.) Relatedly, Plaintiff argues that Defendants took advantage of their greater financial resources to delay the proceedings in court as. long as possible, for instance, by forcing Plaintiff to serve them twice in the Massachusetts state court proceedings. (See-id.) Finally, Plaintiff argues that he could not assert his rights in a New York court given that “Plaintiffs home is over 200 miles away from the New York” and that “[t]here is no direct public transportation from his home to the court.” (See id.)

Although Plaintiff identifies a number of obstacles which may well render pursuing his claim in New York more challenging than in Massachusetts, none is sufficiently “extraordinary” to justify invoking the doctrine of equitable tolling. First, by itself, a plaintiffs “pro se status . ¡. does not merit equitable tolling.” See Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 18 (2d Cir.2000) (italics omitted). Second, even if Defendants’ dilatory tactics prevented Plaintiff from filing a prompt, appeal in the Massachusetts state court proceedings (which is far from obvious), it is not clear how this actually prevented Plaintiff from timely filing his claims in a court with personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Cf. Hizbullahankhamon v. Walker, 255 F.3d 65, 76 (2d Cir.2001) (remarking in the context of ha-beas action that, “even assuming that the alleged deprivation of access to [the petitioner’s] legal materials and the law library constituted an ’extraordinary circumstance’ warranting equitable tolling, petitioner cannot show that this extraordinary circumstance prevented him from, filing a timely habeas petition”). Indeed, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Separate and Final Judgment nearly a month after the superior court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 43.) If anything, Defendants’ approach to the Massachusetts state court litigation underscored rather than obscured the need for Plaintiff to bring his claims in a forum outside of Massachusetts. Cf. Patraker, 2003 WL 22703522, at *2 (finding “nothing extraordinary” about the defendants’ failure to alert the plaintiff to - the fact that he was entitled to overtime pay).

Next, Plaintiffs suggestion that asserting claims in the wrong forum can, itself, amount to sufficiently extraordinary circumstances to warrant equitable tolling fails; otherwise, equitable tolling would be a “cure-all for an entirely common state of affairs” rather than “a rare remedy to be applied in unusual - circumstances.” See Amendola v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 558 F.Supp.2d 459, 479 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 396, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007)). By that same logic, Plaintiffs claims about his limited financial resources and the distance between Massachusetts and New York also. fail. The case law makes clear that “a plaintiff[’]s limited financial means and inability to afford a lawyer are not ’extraordinary circumstances’ that support equitably tolling the limitations period.” See Wen Liu v. Mount Sinai Sch. of Med., No. 09-CV-9663, 2012 WL 4561003, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2012), aff'd sub nom. Wen Liu v. Mount Sinai Sch. of Med. & Agents, 559 Fed.Appx. 106 (2d Cir.2014); see also Apionishev v. Columbia Univ., No. 09-CV-6471, 2011 WL 1197637, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2011) (“Homelessness and depression or illness alone are not sufficient to justify equitable tolling .... ”). Similarly, if equitable tolling were appropriate whenever distance impeded a plaintiffs ability to bring claims in a forum with personal jurisdiction over the defendants, the “exceedingly narrow,” see Barrett, 2015 WL 4111827, at *2, equitable tolling doctrine would essentially swallow the statute of limitations rule. Finally, Plaintiffs protestations that he had to assert his claims under the Wage Act with the Massachusetts attorney general and file his complaint 90 days afterwards are likewise insufficient because neither requirement prevented Plaintiff from timely filing his Complaint'in a forum capable of exercising jurisdiction over Defendants. See Parada, 753 F.3d at 71 (noting that equitable tolling did not apply where the plaintiff submitted a claim with the Department of Labor because the Plaintiff still could have filed her FLSA claim, which- has no administrative exhaustion .requirement).

Even if Plaintiff could establish that extraordinary circumstances militate in favor of equitable tolling, Plaintiff still did not “pass with reasonable diligence through the period [he] seeks to have tolled.” See Patraker, 2003 WL 22703522, at *2 (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff argues that the “Massachusetts Superior Court’s Dismissal Order on ground of lack of personal jurisdiction [was] subject to appeal” and that the “Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal on 3/7/2013,” meaning that “Plaintiff was placed on notice that he could.not obtain personal jurisdiction over the Defendants on 3/7/2013, [and] not September 30, 2010.” (Pl.’s Mem. 4.) Similarly, Plaintiff discusses his various court filings in an effort to demonstrate that he acted with reasonable diligence. (See PL’s Suppl. Mem. 4-5.)

Plaintiffs argument misses the mark ori both factual' and legal grounds. First, Plaintiff had notice that he filed his claims in the wrong court when the superior court dismissed his claims for lack of personal jurisdiction on September 30, 2010. See DeGrate v. Broad. Music; Inc., No. 12-CV-1700, 2013 WL 639146, at *1, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2013) (noting “that Plaintiff received notice that he had filed in the wrong court on [the date when the court rejected the plaintiffs petition for lack of jurisdiction], at which time equitable tolling would have ceased”). Even if Plaintiff felt that he need not file a complaint in a different court because' the Massachusetts Appeals Court had not ruled on his appeal, equitable tolling is still not warranted because the operative question is what a reasonable plaintiff would have done, not what Plaintiff subjectively felt justified in doing. See Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 86 F.3d 8, 12-13 (2d Cir.1996) (declining to apply equitable tolling noting that the plaintiffs’ delay in bringing their claims before the New York Public Health Council and in returning to federal court “was excessive and occasioned by plaintiffs’ lack of diligence,” and noting that “[a] reasonable plaintiff would have returned to federal court sooner” even though the “plaintiffs contend that their fifteen-month delay in filing with the PHC was justified”); cf. Pecoraro v. Diocese of Rapid City, 435 F.3d 870, 872, 874-75 (8th Cir.2006) (finding under South Dakota law that, “[although [the plaintiffs] initial act of suing the [defendant] in [the wrong district] may have been reasonable and in good faith based on his belief the [defendant] was subject to personal jurisdiction [there], [the plaintiffs] subsequent failure to take heed of numerous warnings regarding personal jurisdiction was unreasonable.”); Smithrud v. City of Minneapolis, No. 10-CV-4451, 2012 WL 4128958, at *5 (D.Minn. Sept. 18, 2012) (concluding that “[h]ad [the plaintiff] filed his federal complaint soon after his state complaint was dismissed, or when the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, or even when the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review, he would have been well within the two year limitations period,” but that “[h]is failure to do so demonstrates a lack of diligence, for which equitable tolling is not warranted”), aff'd sub mom. Smithrud v. City of St. Paul, 746 F.3d 391 (8th Cir.2014); Williams v. Tutu Park Ltd., 06-CV-40, 2009 WL 971398, at *5 (D.V.I. Apr. 3, 2009) (finding diligent prosecution of claim under Virgin Island law pursuant to test announced by Third Circuit where plaintiff filed federal case six days after superior court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, but roughly two years after the defendant first moved for dismissal on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction). Second, even if Plaintiff did not have notice that he filed his claims in the wrong forum until the appeals court affirmed the dismissal of defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, (see Pl.’s Mem. 4-5), that date was July 25, 2012, not March 7, 2013 (see Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 13 (July 25, 2012 Appeals Court Opinion), at 3 (“The determination that the individual defendants should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction was not error.”)). That would still leave a gap of over eight months between when the appeals court affirmed the dismissal and when Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint, exhibiting a lack of diligence. (See Dkt. No. 1; Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 13 (July 25, 2012 Appeals Court Opinion), at 3.) See Barrett v. United States, 961 F.Supp.2d 403, 409 (D.Conn.2013) (“[The petitioner’s] inordinate delay in filing his petition — nearly seven months after his attorney explicitly informed him of his right to do so — precludes any finding of reasonable diligence.”).

Moreover, even if the Court applied equitable tolling to exclude from the limitations period the time during which Plaintiffs state and federal actions in Massachusetts were pending, the Complaint would still be untimely. As discussed, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint approximately five years after his claims accrued. Within that period, approximately 10 months elapsed between Plaintiffs November 25, 2009 filing of his second Massachusetts state-court action (the first one that involved any of these Defendants), and the state court’s September 30, 2010 dismissal of all claims involving Defendants on personal-jurisdiction grounds. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 42-43.) Subsequently, another 11 months elapsed between Plaintiffs January 4, 2011 filing of his first Massachusetts federal-court action (in which he named each Defendant, some for the first time in any action), and .the district court’s December 9, 2011 dismissal of all claims involving Defendants on personal-jurisdiction grounds. (See id. ¶¶ 44-45.) Excluding those 21 months from the 60 months it took Plaintiff to file this Action, the Court would deem the Complaint to have been filed 39 months, or over three years, after accrual. Plaintiffs claims are therefore untimely even if equitable tolling applied.

Plaintiff, for his part, submits a few alternative calculations which purport to show that his claims would be timely if equitable tolling did apply to this case. (See Pl.’s Suppl. Mem. 7-8.) Plaintiff does not, however, demonstrate that he “pass[ed] with reasonable diligence through [those] period[s] [he] seeks to have tolled” under either of these alternative scenarios. See Johnson, 86 F.3d at 12. Plaintiff has thus not established that he is entitled to equitable tolling for those periods either, which is fatal to his untimely claims, given that “[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion to show that tolling is justified.” Rodriguez v. Barnhart, No. 01-CV-3411, 2002 WL 31875406, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 24, 2002).

c. Other Tolling Arguments

In addition to his argument that he is entitled to equitable tolling, Plaintiff seems to , suggest his Complaint is timely because he filed suit earlier in Massachusetts’ state and federal courts. (See Pl.’s Mem. 3-4 (arguing that Defendants’ argument. that Plaintiffs claims are time barred “has no merit” and that “the complaint against the ■ Defendants has essentially not stopped in the ’wrong’. forum until this case was filed oh April 1, 2013”).) To the extent Plaintiff intends to argue that the Massachusetts proceedings toll the statute of limitations for some other reason, that argument also fails. Although Plaintiff has brought no shortage of lawsuits related to his short tenure with Artech and IBM, he has filed just two actions — Plaintiffs second state-court lawsuit and his first suit in the District of Massachusetts — in which at least some Defendants from this case were named. (See Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 10 (Jan. 21, 2010 Am. Compl.), Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 16 (Dec. 9, 2011 D. Mass. Order).) With respect to the state court case, Plaintiffs claims against the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice. (See Defs.’ Mem. Ex. 13 (July 25, 2012 Appeals Court Opinion), at 3.) That action, therefore, did not toll the statute of limitations for Plaintiffs FLSA claims because, when calculating- limitations periods for federal claims, “a suit dismissed without prejudice ... is treated for statute of limitations purposes as if it had never been filed.” In re Palermo, 739 F.3d 99, 105 (2d Cir.2014) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Johnson, 86 F.3d at 11 (“[Wjhere [an] action has been dismissed without prejudice, a plaintiffs subsequent court filing is vulnerable to a time-bar because the dismissal in and of itself does not halt the running of the limitations period, even though designated to be without prejudice.”). With respect to Plaintiffs first District of Massachusetts action, Plaintiff filed his complaint in that case on January 4, 2011, (see Am. Compl. ¶ 44; Defs.’ Mem. 8.), and its dismissal was affirmed by the First Circuit on December 10, 2012, (see Am. Compl. ¶ 46; Defs.’ Mem. 9). Even if, for some reason, that lawsuit were to toll Plaintiffs' claims, it would do so for less than two years, which, given that Plaintiffs FLSA claims, as discussed, are subject to no longer than a three-year statute of limitations, means that tolling would not save them, as over five years elapsed between Plaintiffs March 28, 2008 discharge, (see, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶ 23), and April 1, 2013, the date upon which Plaintiff filed his complaint, (see Dkt. No. 1).

With regard to Plaintiffs state-law claims, “New York’s ’savings’ statute allows 'a plaintiff to refile claims within six months of a timely prior action’s termination for reasons cither than the merits or a plaintiffs unwillingness to prosecute the claims in ¿ diligent manner.” Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Blavatnik, 23 N.Y.3d 665, 992 N.Y.S.2d 503, 16 N.E.3d 561, 563 (2014) (citation omitted) (citing N.Y. C.P.L.R. 205(a)); see also Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., No. 11-CV-1529, 2014 WL 684831, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2014) (same), reconsideration denied, 2014 WL 5364102 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2014); Peters v. UBS AG, No. 13-CV-3098, 2014 WL 148631, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2014) (same), aff'd, 588 Fed.Appx. 57 (2d Cir.2014), However, the savings statute does not apply to claims that were dismissed for lack -‘of- - personal jurisdiction. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. 205(a) (providing that this section applies to. “an action [that] is timely commenced and is terminated- in any other manner than ... a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over [a] defendant”); Midwest Mem’l Grp., LLC v. Int’l Fund Servs. (Ir.) Ltd., No. 10-CV-8660, 2011 WL 4916407, at *6-(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2011) (noting that § 205(a)’s' “tolling provisions are not applicable where a prior action against the same defendant ha[d]’been terminated for lack- of personal jurisdiction”); Jacquez v. Campouerde, 309 A.D.2d 903, 766 N.Y.S.2d 89, 89 (2003) (holding that, because a court previously dismissed an action against the defendant -for lack of personal jurisdiction, “the plaintiff was not entitled to inyoke the six-month extension contained in [205(a)] to recommence his terminated-action”). Accordingly, the savings statute applies neither to Plaintiffs state-court action nor to his federal-court action, because both actions were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

2. Retaliatory Refusal-To-Hire Claims

In addition to the six previously discussed counts, Plaintiff brings two claims — one under FLSA (Count Five), the other under Massachusetts’ Wage Act (Count Six) — alleging that Defendants refused to hire Plaintiff in retaliation for exercising his rights under those laws. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 71-93.) Defendants argue that these counts fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted for two , reasons: First, because they are not Plaintiffs “employer” within the meaning of the relevant statutes; and, second, because no well-pleaded factual allegations plausibly suggest retaliation. (See Defs.’ Mem. 15-20.) Because the Court agrees with the latter proposition, there is no need to reach the question of whether Defendants are Plaintiffs employer.

Under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision, “it- [is] unlawful for any person ... to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to [the FLSA].” See 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). Similarly, Massachusetts’ Wage Act provides that “[n]o employee shall be penalized by an employer in any way as a result of any action on the part of an employee to seek his or her rights under [the Wage Act].” See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148A. To allege a claim under the FLSA, “a plaintiff must plead facts showing a prima facie case of retaliation, namely: (1) participation in protected activity known to the defendant^]; (2) an employment action disadvantaging the plaintiff; and (3) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Salazar v. Bowne Realty Assocs., L.L.C., 796 F.Supp.2d 378, 384 (E.D.N.Y.2011); see also Tongring v. Bronx Cmty. Coll. of City Univ. of N.Y. Sys., No. 12-CV-6854, 2014 WL 463616, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2014) (same). A plaintiff must allege similar facts to state a claim under Massachusetts state law. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148A (making liable “[a]ny employer who ... in any ... manner discriminates against any employee because such employee has” sought to vindicate his or her rights under the Wage Act (emphasis added)); Mole v. Univ. of Mass., 442 Mass. 582, 814 N.E.2d 329, 338-39 (2004) (“To make out his pri-ma facie case [of retaliation], [the plaintiff] had to show that he engaged in protected conduct, that he suffered some adverse action, and that a causal connection existed between the protected conduct and the adverse action.” (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted)); Karatihy v. Commonwealth Flats Dev. Corp., 84 Mass.App. Ct. 253, 995 N.E.2d 819, 821-22 (2013) (noting in context of summary judgment that “[t]he elements [the plaintiff] must establish to prove a retaliation claim are that: (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the adverse employment action- was causally related to the protected activity”); see also Joyce v. Upper Crust, LLC, No. 10-CV-12204, 2015 WL 4480751, at *6 (D.Mass. July 21, 2015) (noting in context of motion for summary judgment on § 148A claim that “[the plaintiff] [bore] the burden of showing that [the defendant’s] justification for the adverse action is pretextual and that there [was] a causal connection between [the plaintiffs] action and [the defendant’s] adverse action” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Belghiti v. Select Rests., Inc., No. 10-CV-12049, 2014 WL 1281476, at *4 (D.Mass. Mar. 31, 2014) (noting in considering motion for summary judgment on § 148A claim that “[t]he plaintiff has the burden to show the employer’s justification was pretext” and that “there must be a causal connection between [the] [pjlaintifPs action and [the] [defendant's adverse action”), reconsideration denied, 2014 WL 5846303 (D.Mass. Nov. 12, 2014).

With respect to the causal connection requirement, Plaintiff may specifically allege such a connection either “directly, by alleging facts of a retaliatory animus against him,” or “indirectly, either by showing a temporal relationship in which the protected activity was followed closely in time by discriminatory treatment, or by other circumstantial evidence.” McManamon v. Shinseki, No. 11-CV-7610, 2013 WL 3466863, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2013); see also Herling v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., No. 13-CV-5287, 2014 WL 1621966, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2014) (same); McNair v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosp. Co., 160 F.Supp.2d 601, 604 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (“In order to establish [a] causal connection, a plaintiff must allege (1) direct proof of retaliatory animus directed against the plaintiff; (2) disparate treatment of similarly situated employees; or (3) that the retaliatory action occurred close in time to the protected activities.”). “At the prima facie stage, a plaintiff can rely solely on temporal proximity to establish the requisite causal connection between her protected activity and the materially adverse action that she allegedly suffered in retaliation for engaging in that activity,” Risco v. McHugh, 868 F.Supp.2d 75, 114 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (italics omitted); however, “[t]he cases that accept mere temporal proximity ... as sufficient evidence of causality to establish a prima facie case uniformly hold that the temporal proximity must be very close,” Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Abrams v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 764 F.3d 244, 254 (2d Cir.2014) (noting that “temporal proximity must be very close” for purposes of retaliation claim (internal quotation marks omitted)). “[T]here is no -’bright line to define the outer limits beyond which a temporal relationship is too attenuated to establish a causal relationship between the exercise of a federal constitutional right and an allegedly retaliatory action’ .,” Abrams, 764 F.3d at 254 (quoting Gorman-Bakos v. Cornell Coop. Extension of Schenectady Cty., 252 F.3d 545, 554 (2d Cir.2001)). Consistent with this logic, the courts have found that where even very close temporal proximity exists, the requisite causal connection will falter if the employer’s complained-of conduct began before the employee’s corresponding protected activity. See Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87, 95 (2d Cir.2001) (“Where timing is the only, basis for a claim of retaliation, and gradual adverse job actions began well before the plaintiff had ever engaged, in any protected activity, an inference of retaliation does not arise;”); Dabney v. Christmas Tree Shops, 958 F.Supp.2d 439, 456 (S.D.N.Y.2013) (“Although temporal proximity can sometimes demonstrate a causal nexus,, where ... the termination was ultimately the product of an extensive period of progressive discipline that began when [the] [p]laintiff received her first written warning ... months before [employer learned of the allegedly protected activity], a claim for retaliation cannot be maintained.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), ajfd sub nom. Dabney v. Bed Bath & Beyond, 588 Fed.Appx. 15 (2d Cir.2014); White v. Eastman Kodak, No. 06-CV-6493, 2009 WL 1514659, at *10 (W.D.N.Y. May 29, 2009) (“[W]here ... discipline was already underway prior to the protected activity ..., the Second Circuit has held that temporal proximity alone is insufficient to make out a prima facie case.”), aff'd, 368 Fed.Appx. 200 (2d Cir.2010). By extension, in the context of a failure-to-hire claim, a decision not to hire — if initially made before the relevant protected activity occurred — will not give rise to an inference of retaliation when the prospective employer persists in refusing to hire the prospective employee after the protected activity. See Ayazi v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., No. 08-CV-2456, 2012 WL 4503257, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2012) (concluding that the defendant's refusal to interview the plaintiff in February 2007, despite its temporal proximity to the plaintiffs EEOC charge, “[was] a mere continuation of an adverse employment condition initiated long before the protected 'activity in question and does not, without more; logically support an inference that the protected activity prompted retaliation” (alteration and internal quotation marks- omitted)), reconsideration denied, 2013 WL 310394 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2013), aff'd, 586 Fed.Appx. 600 (2d Cir.2014); see also Jones v. Performance Serv. Integrity, 492 F.Supp.2d 590, 596 (N.D.Tex.2007) (“[The defendant] could not have retaliated against [the plaintiff] for filing an EEOC charge by not hiring her when its decision to not- hire her occurred nearly three weeks before she filed the EEOC charge.”). And, even where the protected activity occurs before the adverse' employment action, “[c]ourts in this Circuit have consistently held that the passage of two to three months between the protected activity and the adverse employment action does not allow for an inference of causation.” Straebler v. NBC Universal, Inc., No. 11-CV-4131, 2013 WL 541524, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2013); see also Beachum v. AWISCO N.Y., 785 F.Supp.2d 84, 98 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (same), aff'd, 459 Fed.Appx. 58 (2d Cir.2012); Murray v. Visiting Nurse Servs. of N.Y., 528 F.Supp.2d 257, 275 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (same).

“FLSA retaliation claims are subject to the three-step burden-shifting framework established by [McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)].” Mullins v. City of N.Y., 626 F.3d 47, 53 (2d Cir.2010). Under that framework, “[o]nce [a plaintiff] makes a prima facie case of ... retaliation, the burden shifts to the employer to give a legitimate ... reason for its actions,” and, “[i]f the employer does so, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s explanation is a pretext for ... retaliation.” Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223, 225 (2d Cir.2014). At this stage in the litigation, as courts have recognized in similar contexts, Plaintiff “is not required to specifically plead every element of a prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss;” however, he “[s]till ... must plead facts sufficient to render his ... retaliation claim facially plausible under Twombly and Iqbal.” Ayazi, 2012 WL 4503257, at *7; see also Herling, 2014 WL 1621966, at *8 (setting out the elements of a prima facie case for a retaliation claim while noting that “a plaintiff need not plead facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation to survive a motion to dismiss[,]” but rather that “the ordinary rules for assessing the sufficiency of a complaint apply” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Brundidge v. Xerox Corp., No. 12-CV-6157, 2014 WL 1323020, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014) (“Retaliation claims are ultimately analyzed under the [McDonnell Douglas] burden-shifting rules .... However, at the pleading