Case ID: f-appx_596/html/0035-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael SLOAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP., DBA United Technologies Research Center, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-396-CV.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 4, 2015.
    Michael Sloan, pro se, West Hartford, CT, for Appellant.
    Glenn William Dowd, Day Pitney LLP, Hartford, CT; Howard Fetner, Day Pit-ney LLP, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: REENARAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Michael Sloan, proceeding pro se, appeals from an award of summary-judgment in favor of defendant United Technologies Corp. on Sloan’s claims of racially discriminatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case, which we discuss only as necessary to explain ourdecision to affirm.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and drawing] all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Cox v. Warwick Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 267, 271 (2d Cir.2011). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cnty., Inc. v. Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm’n, 768 F.3d 183, 192 (2d Cir.2014).

Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for defendant on Sloan’s federal claim. For essentially the reasons stated by the district court, we conclude that Sloan failed to adduce evidence sufficient to admit a finding that his discharge occurred “in circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination,” as required to carry his prima facie burden under Title VII. Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223, 225 (2d Cir.2014) (analyzing Title VII claims under burden-shifting standard of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)). The stray remarks cited by plaintiff were either facially race neutral or too removed from plaintiffs discharge to support an inference of discriminatory causation. See generally Henry v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc., 616 F.3d 134, 149-50 (2d Cir.2010) (discussing factors to consider in determining probative value of stray remarks); Tomassi v. Insignia Fin. Grp., 478 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir.2007) (holding that remarks by someone other than decision maker “may have little tendency to show that the decision-maker was motived by the discriminatory sentiment expressed in the remark”), abrogated on other grounds by Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 177-78, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). On this record, no rational finder of fact could find that plaintiff was discharged as a result of racial discrimination.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, and we conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
      . Sloan points to no error in the district court's dismissal of his parallel claim under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practice Act, see Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46a-58 et seq. Accordingly, we deem any such argument abandoned and do not address the state-law claim. See Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d 78, 97 (2d Cir.2012). In any event, the district court did not err in concluding that sections 46a-58 and 46a-60 of that law afford him "no private cause of action independent of section 46a-100, which requires exhaustion before the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CHRO”). See Sullivan v. Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 196 Conn. 208, 215-16, 491 A.2d 1096 (1985) (stating that plaintiff who fails to follow prescribed administrative route for claim of discrimination lacks statutory authority to pursue that claim).
     
      
      . We decline to consider the new evidence plaintiff raises for the first time on appeal. Our review is generally limited to "the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court.” Fed. R.App. P. 10(a)(1); see Loria v. Gorman, 306 F.3d 1271, 1280 n. 2 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Ordinarily, material not included in the record on appeal will not be considered.”). Plaintiff contends that his attorney failed to include this evidence in the record below, but such failure is not an “extraordinary circumstance[ ]" that would warrant an exception to our general rule. IBM Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37, 45 (2d Cir.1975); see Jackson v. Fed. Express, 766 F.3d 189, 198 (2d Cir.2014) (a party is "bound by the concessions of [his] freely retained counsel” (internal quotation marks omitted)).