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