14‐1583
Gonzalez v. Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
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 16th day of June, two thousand fifteen.
PRESENT:
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
PETER W. HALL,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
SORAYA ROJAS GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v. No. 14‐1583
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP,
KEVIN MAGGERTY, KATHY ORTIZ,
BARBARA SMITH, TYRA BOWENS,
Defendants‐Appellees.
_____________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF‐APPELLANT: SORAYA ROJAS GONZALEZ, pro se,
Forest Hills, NY.
FOR DEFENDANTS‐APPELLEES: LOUIS P. DILORENZO, Bond,
Schoeneck & King PLLC, New York,
NY.
_____________________________________
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Kuntz, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Appellant Soraya Rojas Gonzalez, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s judgment dismissing her Americans with Disabilities Act complaint. The
district court ruled that Gonzalez did not timely file a charge of discrimination
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and had not demonstrated
her entitlement to equitable tolling. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
2
We review the dismissal of a complaint de novo, “construing the complaint
liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,
282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). Gonzalez does not argue that her administrative
charge was timely filed and has therefore abandoned any challenge to the district
court’s ruling that it was untimely. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88,
92‐93 (2d Cir. 1995). We review the denial of equitable tolling for abuse of
discretion. See Zerilli‐Edelglass v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 333 F.3d 74, 81 (2d Cir.
2003).
Our review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial
of equitable tolling. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district
court in its thorough April 30, 2014, memorandum.
We have considered all of Gonzalez’s remaining 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
3