Case ID: f-appx_517/html/0048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wildie JOUBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-322-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 17, 2013.
    Wildie Joubert, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
    Marta Soja Ross, Edward F.X. Hart, Assistant Corporation Counsels, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    PRESENT: WALKER, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges, JANE A. RESTANI, Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jane A. Restani, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Wildie Joubert, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment entered December 21, 2011, pursuant to the district court’s December 20, 2011 memorandum decision and order. This order granted defendant-appellee New York City Board of Education’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Joubert’s claims of employment discrimination, hostile work environment sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence and drawing all factual inferences in Joubert’s favor. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). After an independent review of the record, we conclude that defendant-appellee was entitled to summary judgment for substantially the reasons set forth by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

We have considered all of Joubert’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.