Vasquez v. New York City Department of Education

15-2185 Vasquez v. New York City Department of Education et al. 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 1st day of July, two thousand sixteen. 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 ANGEL VASQUEZ, 13 Plaintiff-Appellant, 14 15 -v.- 15-2185 16 17 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 18 & PAULA CUNNINGHAM, 19 Defendants-Appellees. 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 21 22 FOR APPELLANT: JOSHUA BELDNER, Tilton Beldner 23 LLP, Uniondale, New York. 24 25 FOR APPELLEES: DAMION K. L. STODOLA, Assistant 26 Corporation Counsel (with 27 Richard Dearing, on the brief), 28 for Zachary W. Carter, 29 Corporation Counsel of the City 30 of New York, New York, New York. 1 1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 2 Court for the Southern District of New York (Nathan, J.). 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 5 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 6 AFFIRMED. 7 8 Angel Vasquez appeals from the March 5, 2014 Decision 9 and Order1 of the United States District Court for the 10 Southern District of New York (Nathan, J.), granting summary 11 judgment with respect to the termination of Vasquez’s 12 probationary employment in favor of defendants-appellees New 13 York City Department of Education (“DOE”) and Principal 14 Paula Cunningham on claims of employment discrimination 15 under the Equal Protection Clause, the New York State Human 16 Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), and the New York City Human Rights 17 Law (“NYCHRL”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 19 presented for review. 20 21 The sole issue on appeal is whether Vasquez adduced 22 sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find 23 that the defendants’ proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory 24 reason for Vasquez’s termination was pretext for 25 discrimination based on sex or race. See Vivenzio v. City 26 of Syracuse, 611 F.3d 98, 106 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The 27 substantive standards applicable to claims of employment 28 discrimination under Title VII . . . are also generally 29 applicable to claims of employment discrimination brought 30 under . . . the Equal Protection Clause, and the NYSHRL 31 . . . .”). The defendants relied on the results of an 32 investigation conducted by the Special Commissioner of 33 Investigation (“SCI”). The SCI investigation, conducted 34 independently of Principal Cunningham, substantiated 35 allegations that Vasquez physically and verbally abused 36 students based, in part, on his own admissions during the 37 investigation. 1 Judgment was entered on June 15, 2015, after a two- day trial at which a jury awarded Vasquez $22,700 on a separate sex-based discrimination claim (failure to be reappointed to his position running an after-school basketball program in January 2010, several months prior to the events leading to Vasquez’s termination). 2 1 Vasquez argues that Cunningham withheld evidence from 2 SCI investigators. The record belies this assertion. 3 Cunningham established that her assistant principals were 4 aware of protocol requiring the forwarding of pertinent 5 information to investigators, and told a teacher who 6 approached her with potentially probative information to 7 report that information to the superintendent’s office. 8 Vasquez cites an error in the disciplinary letter; but the 9 mistake was rectified, and in any event, the discrepancy has 10 no impact on the physical and verbal misconduct attributed 11 to Vasquez, including conduct he admitted to SCI 12 investigators. In essence, Vasquez takes issue with a 13 number of the allegations levied against him; however, the 14 veracity of these allegations is immaterial to the question 15 of pretext. See McPherson v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 16 457 F.3d 211, 216 (2d Cir. 2006) (“In a discrimination case, 17 however, we are decidedly not interested in the truth of the 18 allegations against plaintiff. We are interested in what 19 ‘motivated the employer’; the factual validity of the 20 underlying imputation against the employee is not at issue.” 21 (emphasis in original) (quoting United States Postal Serv. 22 Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 (1983))). 23 24 The grant of summary judgment on Vasquez’s NYCHRL claim 25 was similarly proper. Although NYCHRL claims must be 26 adjudicated “separately and independently from any federal 27 and state law claims” and are construed “‘broadly in favor 28 of discrimination plaintiffs,’” “a defendant is not liable 29 if the plaintiff fails to prove the conduct is caused at 30 least in part by discriminatory or retaliatory motives.” 31 Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 32 102, 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Albunio v. City of New 33 York, 947 N.E.2d 135, 137 (N.Y. 2011)). Vasquez adduced no 34 evidence that either race or sex discrimination influenced 35 his termination. See Bennett v. Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 92 36 A.D.3d 29, 46 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (“Plaintiff put forward 37 no evidence that defendant’s explanations were pretextual, 38 nor any evidence that a discriminatory motive coexisted with 39 the legitimate reasons supported by defendant’s evidence.”). 40 41 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 42 Vasquez’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of 43 the district court. 44 45 FOR THE COURT: 46 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 47 3