Summary
granting employer summary judgment on ADA claim and noting "[t]he Second Circuit has specifically held that requiring an employee to undergo an evaluation does not evidence discrimination."
Summary of this case from Shaw v. Yale New Haven Hosp.Opinion
No. 08-2510-cv.
November 5, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Denny Chin, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court entered on April 23, 2008, is AFFIRMED.
Roxanne Ford, New York, NY, pro se.
Cheryl Payer and Stephen J. McGrath, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, WALKER and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Roxanne Ford appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of her former employer, the New York City Department of Health Mental Hygiene, on her claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq.
We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003). We will uphold a summary judgment award only where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Miller v. Wolpoff Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003).
Upon de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the award of summary judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See Ford v. N.Y. City Dep't of Health Mental Hygiene, 545 F.Supp.2d 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).