12‐3355‐cv
Muhammad v. Walmart Stores East, L.P.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
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 TO 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 9th day of October, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT:
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
Abidan Muhammad,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v. 12‐3355
Walmart Stores East, L.P.*
Defendant‐Appellee,
_____________________________________
*
The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption to conform with
the listing of the parties above.
FOR PLAINTIFF ‐APPELLANT: Christina S. Agola, Christina A.
Agola, PLLC, Rochester, NY.
FOR DEFENDANT ‐APPELLEE Michael S. Hanan, Gordon & Rees
LLP, Florham Park, NJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York (Siragusa, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff‐Appellant Abidan Muhammad filed this employment discrimination
action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York following
his termination from Defendant‐Appellee Walmart’s employ. He now appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
facts and history of the case.
In his opposition to summary judgment, Muhammad asserted claims under Title
VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, he advanced no facts
that could support his claim of discrimination on account of disability, race, or gender.
Walmartʹs different treatment of a female employee failed to support gender
discrimination, in part, because they were not similarly situated. Unlike Muhammad,
the female employee had not acted abusively to a manager or to any other Walmart
employee. His abusive outburst at his supervisor gave Walmart a legitimate reason to
2
fire him and Muhammad failed to produce any evidence that his termination was
carried out for improper motives. Muhammad’s ADA claims also fail. Walmart’s
accommodations were “plainly reasonable,” and Muhammad did not engage in any
protected activity to trigger a retaliation claim. Wernick v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., 91
F.3d 379, 385 (2d Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Walmart’s motion
for attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3