14‐1454
Hahn v. Bank of America N.A.
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 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 4th day of June, two thousand fifteen.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.
____________________________________________
LORI HAHN,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
‐v.‐ No. 14‐1454
BANK OF AMERICA N.A.,
Defendant‐Appellee,
MARIA LOCCISANO,
Defendant.
1
____________________________________________
For Plaintiff‐Appellant: Eric M. Baum, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP,
New York, NY.
For Defendant‐Appellee: Alice A. Kokodis, Edwards Wildman
Palmer LLP, Boston, MA.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Freeman, M.J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff Lori Hahn brought suit against her former employer, Bank of
America (“BOA” or the “Bank”), under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law
(“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290, et seq., claiming the Bank discriminated
against her on the basis of her national origin, created a hostile work
environment, and retaliated against her for her complaints to the Bank’s human
resources department. Following discovery, BOA moved for summary judgment
and Hahn voluntarily dismissed her discrimination claim. In its March 31, 2014,
Memorandum and Opinion, the magistrate judge granted summary judgment
for BOA on Hahn’s retaliation and hostile work environment claims. Hahn
2
appeals that decision. We affirm for reasons stated by the magistrate judge in
her Memorandum and Opinion.
We have considered all of Hahn’s arguments and find them to be without
merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3