Tudela asks federal court to deny CPA motion to dismiss age bias lawsuit

Former Commonwealth Ports Authority executive director Leo Borja Tudela is asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands to deny the CPA’s motion to dismiss his age discrimination lawsuit, arguing that his complaint alleges sufficient facts for the case to proceed to discovery.

In the June 26, 2026 filing, Tudela argues that the court should not resolve factual disputes or weigh competing inferences at the pleading stage, but instead determine only whether his complaint plausibly states a claim for relief.

The lawsuit alleges that CPA violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA, by forcing Tudela from his position as executive director because of his age. According to the opposition, Tudela was 82 years old at the time of the events, was qualified for the position, performed successfully as executive director, and was ultimately replaced by substantially younger individuals.

The filing states that Tudela served as CPA executive director from Nov. 14, 2023, until Dec. 18, 2024. It alleges that during his tenure, CPA revenue increased by 48% and cites accomplishments including repairs at the Rota terminal, work addressing leaks at the Francisco C. Ada-Saipan International Airport terminal, rerouting the terminal's air-conditioning system to reduce electrical costs, and addressing generator maintenance issues.

According to the opposition, Tudela's complaint alleges that concerns about his age arose even before he was hired, including a selection committee member allegedly saying he was "too old." The filing further alleges that after he became executive director, then CPA board chairman Ramon Tebuteb told another board member off the record that Tudela was "too old."

The opposition further alleges that during an Oct. 25, 2024 meeting, Tebuteb asked Tudela how old he was before directing him to submit a 30-day notice of resignation or receive a 30-day notice of termination. When Tudela allegedly asked for a reason, the filing states Tebuteb responded that he was "not up to par" but did not provide specific examples. Tudela contends he resigned under pressure and duress rather than voluntarily.

In the filing, Tudela argues CPA improperly asks the court to accept the authority's asserted performance-related explanation and reject his allegations before discovery has taken place. He contends that under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations as true solely for purposes of deciding whether the lawsuit may proceed.

The opposition also disputes CPA's argument that the alleged age-related remarks were merely "stray remarks." Tudela argues that the comments were allegedly made by individuals involved in the employment decision and were closely connected to the events leading to his resignation, making them inappropriate to disregard at the pleading stage.

Tudela further argues that CPA's reliance on the so-called "same actor" inference is premature because it requires factual determinations regarding who made the hiring and termination decisions. Those issues, he argues, should be resolved after discovery rather than on a motion to dismiss.

The opposition also contends that Ninth Circuit precedent does not require an ADEA plaintiff to prove a prima facie case in the complaint. Instead, Tudela argues he need only allege sufficient facts to make his claim plausible. He maintains that his allegations are stronger than those found sufficient in prior Ninth Circuit age discrimination cases because they include repeated age-related comments, an alleged resignation-or-termination ultimatum immediately following a question about his age, and replacement by substantially younger individuals.

Tudela also argues that a resignation obtained through coercion or under threat of termination may constitute an involuntary resignation or constructive discharge under Ninth Circuit precedent. He contends that his allegations, if accepted as true at this stage of the litigation, sufficiently plead an adverse employment action under the ADEA.

The filing further argues that any dispute over the types of damages available under the ADEA should not result in dismissal of the lawsuit. Tudela maintains that remedies including back pay, front pay where appropriate, attorney's fees, costs, equitable relief and statutory liquidated damages for alleged willful violations remain available if he ultimately prevails.

Alternatively, Tudela asks the court for permission to amend his complaint should the court determine that any portion of the pleading requires clarification. He asks that CPA's motion to dismiss be denied and that the case proceed to discovery.

Tudela is seeking damages including back pay, lost benefits, emotional distress, and punitive damages. He is also asking for possible reinstatement, attorney’s fees, and mandated training for CPA leadership on federal anti-discrimination laws.

A right-to-sue notice was issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last Dec. 31, 2025, according to the filing.