
    Wajid AL-QADAFFI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SERVICES FOR THE UNDERSERVED, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Whoopi Goldberg, et al., Defendants.
    No. 15-815.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 27, 2016..
    Wajid Al-Qadaffi, pro se, Bronx, NY, for Appellant.
    Mary Ellen Donnelly and Robert M. Tucker, Putney, Twombly, Hall & Hirson LLP, New York, NY, for Sus Appellees.
    Richard Dearing, for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for City Appel-lees.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RICHARD C. WESLEY, and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Wajid al-Qadaffi, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pauley, J.) dismissing his amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Al-Qadaffi raised claims for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Ahlers v. Rabinowitz, 684 F.3d 53, 60 (2d Cir.2012). A complaint filed pro se is liberally construed and held to a less stringent pleading standard than one filed by counsel. Id.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its January 30, 2015 opinion. We separately consider two of al-Qadaffi’s arguments on appeal.

Al-Qadaffi contends that dismissal of his age discrimination claim was error because he alleged that only one individual over the age of 55 had been hired by Services for the Underserved during the relevant period. But al-Qadaffi does not allege the ages of the people hired instead of him- or any other facts from which a court could draw a plausible inference of discrimination. See D’Cunha v. Genovese/Eckerd Corp., 479 F.3d 193, 195 (2d Cir.2007).

As to al-Qadaffi’s disparate impact claim: he alleges that Services for the Underserved’s Brooklyn Clubhouse has a policy of not hiring people who were members of the Clubhouse, and that all Clubhouse members were disabled. He does not allege that the Clubhouse has a policy or practice against hiring non-members who have disabilities. Al-Qadaffi’s threadbare allegation does not give rise to a plausible inference that the Clubhouse has a policy that adversely impacts disabled applicants. See Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Dep't, 352 F.3d 565, 574-75 (2d Cir.2003).

Accordingly, and finding no merit in al-Qadaffi’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  