09-0064-cv

Mazurkiewicz v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OFAP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUM M AR

Y O RD ER RUL I NGS BY S UM M ARY ORDE R DO NOT HAVE PR E CE DE NT I AL EF FE CT . CI T AT I ON TO S UM M ARY ORDE RS FI L E D AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GO VE RNE D BY T HI S COURT ’ S L OCAL RUL E 3 2 . 1 AND FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A BRI E F OR O TH ER PA PER I N W H I C H A LI TI GA N T CI TES A SU M M A R Y O R D ER , I N EA C H PA R A G R A PH I N W H I C H A C I TATI O N APPEARS , AT L EAST O N E C I TA TI O N M U ST E IT H E R B E T O T H E F E D E R A L A P P E N D IX O R B E A C C O M P A N IE D B Y T H E N O T A T IO N : (S U M M A R Y O R D E R ). A P A R T Y C I T I N G A S U M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C OP Y OF T HA T S U M M A R Y O R D E R T O G E T H E R WI T H T HE PA PE R I N W H I C H TH E SU M M A R Y O R D ER I S C I TE D O N A N Y PA R TY N O T R EP R ESEN TE D B Y C O U N SEL U N LE SS TH E S U M M A R Y O R D E R I S A V A I LAB LE I N AN ELECTR O N I C DA TAB A SE W H I C H I S PU B LI C LY A C C ESS I B LE W ITH O U T P A Y M E N T O F F E E (SU C H A S T H E D A T A B A SE A V A ILA B L E A T H T T P :/ / W W W . C A 2 . U SC O U R T S.G O V / ). I F N O C OP Y I S S E R V E D B Y R E A S ON OF T HE AVAI L ABI L I T Y OF T HE OR D E R ON S U C H A D A T A B A S E , T HE C IT A T IO N M U S T IN C L U D E R E F E R E N C E T O T H A T D A T A B A S E A N D T H E D O C K E T N U M B E R O F T H E C A S E IN W HI CH THE ORDE R W AS E NT E RE D.

At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 16 day

of De cembe r, two thousand nine. th PRES ENT: WI L FRED F EI NB ERG, J OHN M. WALKER, J R., ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges
.

_______________________________________________ D ar iu s z Wo

jc ie c hM a zur

k ie w ic z, Plain tif f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. 09-0064-c v New Y ork City

Hea lth and Hospitals Corp., et al., De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lle es.

_______________________________________ FOR PLAI

NTIFF -APPEL LANT: Dariusz Wojciech Mazurkiewicz, pro s e , Woodhaven, NY FOR DEF ENDAN TS-APPEL L EES: Debor ah A. B renne r, Senior Counsel, for Michae l A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New Y ork, Ne w York, NY2

Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York ( McMahon, J. ). UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DE CREED that th e jud gme nt o f s a id D istri c t Co ur t be and he reby is AF F IRM ED
. Appellant Da

riusz W ojciech Mazurkiewicz appea ls from the district court’ s judgme nt grantingthe def

endants’ motion for judgment on the pleading s and dismissing his employ ment discrimination complaint. We assume the par ties’ familiarity

with the fac ts, procee dings be low,
and sp e c if ic atio n o f i ssu e s o n a

pp e a l. We find that the district court should have conver ted the def

endants’ motion for judgment on the pleading s to a motion for summary judgme nt, pursuant to Rule 12(d) of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil P roce dure, sincea dec ision on the moti on require d the district court to consider fac ts and arguments that wereoutside of the plea dings. H oweve r, this error was ha rmless, since the Appellant wa s awa

re of the proposed ba sis for dismissal, understood how to respond to the defe ndants’ arguments, and did, in fac t present a full and cohe rent re sponse. See Re lia nc eIn s. Co. v. Polyvision Corp. , 4 74 F .3 d 5 4, 57 (2 d Ci r. 20 07 ). Thus , w e ana ly ze t his matte r u

nd e r R ule 56. Th is C ourt

re vie ws an o rd e r gra

nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt de novo and asks whe ther the district court prope rly

conclude d that there wer e no g enuine issues of material fa ct and that the moving pa

rty was e ntitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. See M iller v. W olpoff &Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 ( 2d Cir. 2003). In deter mining whe ther ther e ar e g enuine issues of materia l fac t, this C ourt is “re quired to re solve all ambiguities and draw all permissible fac tual infere nces in fa

vor of the pa

rty ag ainst whom summary

judgme nt is sought.” Te rry v . A sh c ro ft , 33 6 F .3 d 1 28 , 1 37 (2 d Ci r. 20 03 ) ( qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) . H ow e ve r, “ c on c lus or y state me nts3

or merealleg ations [are] not sufficient to defe at a summary judgme nt motion.” Davis v. State of Ne w York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 ( 2d Cir. 2002). Fo r aT i t l e V I Icl ai mar i s i n g i nNe w Y o rkt o b e t i m el y , a p l ai nt i ff mu s tfi l e th e c h ar ge with the Equal Employ

ment Opportunity

Commi ssion (“EEOC”) within 300 day s of the alleg edly unlawful e mploy

ment prac tice. See42 U. S.C. § 2 00 0e -5 (e ); Quinn v. Gre en Tree Cre dit Cor p , 159 F.3d 759, 765 ( 2d Cir. 1998). Title VI I ’s time limit s for filingwith the EEOC
are not jurisdictional, but, li ke statutes of limitations, are subjec t to “waiver , estoppel, and equitable tolling.” Zipes v. Trans W orld Airli nes, Inc

. , 4 55 U. S. 3 85 , 3 93 (1 98 2) . E qu ita ble tolling is g ener ally

“appr opriate only

wher e the de fenda

nt has ac tively

misled the plaintiff respe ctingthe ca

use of a ction, or whe re the plaintiff has in some extraordinar y way been preve nted from a ssertinghis rights, or ha s raised the prec ise statutory claim in issue but has mistakenly

done so in the wrongforum.” Smith v. Am. Pre sident Lines, Ltd. , 571 F.2d 102, 109 (2d Cir. 1978). It is undisput ed that Mazurkiewic z failed to timely file a c harg e with the EEOC. Moreove r, his claim that he wa s not adequately informed a

bout the need to do so is not sufficie nt to permit equitable tolling. Se eSm ith , 571 F.2d at 111 (“[The plaintiff’s] claim that he ha d no knowledg e of the EEOC bec ause of appellee s’ fa ilure to post notices . . . does not in our view alleg e misleading , fra

udulent or dec eptive conduc t by the appe llees suffic ient to permit tolli ng here .”). Thus, the district court prope rly dismiss ed Mazurkiewic z’s Titl e VI Iclaims on the gro un d th at th e y

we reno t ti me ly

fi le d w iththe EE OC
. An employee ma

y waive c laims of discrimination so long a s the waive r is made “knowing ly

and voluntarily .” See Tung v. Tex aco, Inc

. , 150 F.3d 206, 208 ( 2d Cir. 1998)4 SA O-ARW (re viewingwaiver

of Title VI Iclaims). In makingsuch a de termination, this Court has adopted a

“ tot a lity of thec ir c ums tanc e s” a

pp ro a c h, c on sid e ri ngfa c tor s su c h a s: (1) the Plaintiff’ s education and business experience ; (2) the amount of time Pl aintiff had possession of or a cce ss to the agree ment befor e signing it; (3) the role of the Plaintiff in decidingthe terms of the agree ment; (4) the c larity of the a gree ment; (5) whether the Plaintiff was represe nted by or consulted with an attorney ; and (6) whether the consider ation g iven, in exchang e for the waive r of c laims, ex cee ds employee be nefits to which the e mploy ee w as alre ady entitled by

law. Id . ( c iti ngwi th a

pp ro va l th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s re lia nc e on the se fa c tor s) . In a dd iti on , in or de r t o establish the def

ense of economic dur ess, a plaintiff must prove that there was “ (1) a threat, (2) which wa s unlawfully

made, a nd (3) c aused involuntary acc eptanc e of c ontrac t terms, (4) beca use the c ircumstance s permitted no other a lternative.” Kam e rm an v . S te inb e rg , 891 F.2d 424, 431 (2d Cir. 1989) (c itation omit ted). Mazurkiewicz has fa iled to establish economic dur ess as a defe nse to the wa iver of a ny claims arisingout of his termination beca use he did not alleg e the r equisite threat. As to the validity of the wa iver g ener ally , the length of time that Mazurkiewicz had to revie w the
a gre e me nt, thec lari ty

of thea gre e me nt, and

the fa c t th at Mazur

kie wi c z wa s a ssi ste d b y

c ouns e l, all indicate that the w aiver was e x ecute d knowing ly and voluntarily . Thus, the district court
corr ectly conclude d that Mazurkiewicz waived a ll claims arisingout of his Febr uary 2005 termination. We h ave c on sid e re d a ll o f M a zur kie wi c z’s re ma ini ngargume nts and have fo un d th e m to b e w i th o utm e r i t . A c c o r d i n g l y, th e j u d g m e nto f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED
. F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk By :_______________________