Case ID: f-appx_566/html/0089-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ann M. LEMBARIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-3474-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 19, 2014.
    
      Ann M. Lembaris, pro se, Springwater, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jacqueline Phipps Polito, Littler Men-delson, P.C., Rochester, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Present: AMALYA L. KEARSE, CHESTER J. STRAUB, and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Christina A. Agola, Christina A. Agola, PLLC, Brighton, NY, filed a brief on behalf of Appellant before being relieved as counsel.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on August 29, 2013, is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Ann Lembaris, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for Appellee University of Rochester and dismissal of Lembaris’s employment discrimination action. See Lembaris v. Univ. of Rochester, No. 12-cv-6214 (MAT), 2013 WL 4587810 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456, 465 (2d Cir.2001). Summary judgment is appropriate “only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. On summary judgment, the court must consider “not whether ... the evidence unmistakably favors one side or the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence presented.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). “[T]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Id.

Upon review, we conclude — substantially for the reasons articulated by the District Court in its well-reasoned opinion — that Lembaris has failed to produce evidence sufficient to support a reasonable finding that the University of Rochester’s proffered non-discriminatory grounds for her termination were pretextual. See Abdtir-Brisson, 239 F.3d at 470.

We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the reasons set out above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.