Case ID: f-appx_606/html/0630-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Willodene ROBINS, aka Dena Ketchem-Robins, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-2678-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 4, 2015.
    Willodene Robins, Bronx, N.Y., pro se.
    Susan Paulson, Francis F. Caputo, of Counsel, for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, N.Y.
    PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Willodene Robins, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants, dismissing her claims of age and race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, focusing on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Sotomayor v. City of New York, 713 F.3d 163, 164 (2d Cir.2013). In so doing, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to Robins as the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor. Id.

An independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the New York City Board of Education. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its order. See Robins v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., No. 07 Civ. 3599, 2010 WL 2507047 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2010). First, the district court correctly concluded that Robins’s Title VII and ADEA claims regarding her 2004-2005 evaluation were time-barred. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)(B). Second, Robins has failed to establish a prima facie case for employment discrimination or retaliation under Title VII or the ADEA, and in any event, has failed to rebut Defendant’s legitimate non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for the challenged actions. See generally Collins v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 305 F.3d 113, 118-19 (2d Cir.2002); Farias v. Instructional Sys., Inc., 259 F.3d 91, 98-99 (2d Cir.2001). Finally, Robins has failed to establish a pri-ma facie case for hostile work environment, as she has failed to provide any evidence that the alleged harassment was directed at her on account of her race or age. See Brennan v. Metro. Opera Ass’n, 192 F.3d 310, 318 (2d Cir.1999).

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