Summary
finding that employer's "evidence that [the plaintiff] was unable to get along with others in his workplace" served as a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for the challenged employment action
Summary of this case from Boyce-Herbert v. N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp.Opinion
13-781-cv
02-19-2014
Teofil Boata, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pfizer, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
FOR APPELLANT: LAURA M. DILIMETIN, (Steven A. Morelli, on the brief), The Law Office of Steven A. Morelli, P.C., Garden City, New York. FOR APPELLEE: PETER MOSKOWITZ, (Jillian Lee Hunt, on the brief), Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, New York.
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of February, two thousand fourteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.
FOR APPELLANT:
LAURA M. DILIMETIN, (Steven A.
Morelli, on the brief), The Law
Office of Steven A. Morelli,
P.C., Garden City, New York.
FOR APPELLEE:
PETER MOSKOWITZ, (Jillian Lee
Hunt, on the brief), Jackson
Lewis P.C., New York, New York.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Teofil Boata appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.), granting summary judgment in favor of Pfizer, Inc. ("Pfizer") on Boata's claims alleging age, race, and national origin discrimination, and on his retaliation claims. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
The district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. See Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 728 F.3d 149, 154 (2d Cir. 2013). "Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. In making this determination, we "resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is appropriate "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Upon reviewing the record de novo, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Pfizer, substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's thorough January 31, 2013 Memorandum Decision & Order.
We have considered all of Boata's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK