Case ID: f-appx_482/html/0661-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anthony ANTUNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PUTNAM NORTHERN WESTCHESTER BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, Vincent Garnot, Individually, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-2453-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 20, 2012.
    Annette G. Hasapidis, Law Offices of Annette G. Hasapidis, South Salem, N.Y., for Appellant.
    Mark C. Rushfield, Shaw, Perelson, May & Lambert, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for Appellees.
    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, BARRINGTON D. PARKER and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Anthony Antunes appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and specification of issues for review.

‘We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352, 358 (2d Cir.2011).

We are unable to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that defendants declined to hire Antunes because of his age. See Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93, 106 (2d Cir.2010). Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants.

We note only that the mere fact that Antunes was not aware of the school district’s hiring policy at issue in this case— and even that defendants may have intentionally avoided making the policy public— is not sufficient, even when viewed against other evidence in the case, to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that such a policy was merely a pretext for unlawful age discrimination. School district administrators may have simply preferred not to make the policy public in order to avoid any appearance that the school district favored certain employees over others in the hiring process.

We find Antunes’s remaining arguments to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.