1

09-0232-cv Falso v. Sutherland Global Servs.



### UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



# SUM MARY O RDE R

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT
. C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED O N O RA FTER J

ANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE P ROCEDURE 3 2 .1 AN D T H I S C OURT ’ S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
.


### 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

### 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

### 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 

### 4 New York, on the 29 day of April, two thousand ten. th 

### 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 

### 7 Chief Judge, 

### 8 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, 

### 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 

### 10 Circuit Judges. 

### 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X Anthony Falso, 

### 13 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### 14 15 16 -v.- 09-0232-cv 

### 17 18 Sutherland Global Services, Kristine 

### 19 Barlett, Maria Smith, Angela Sorrell, 

### 20 Defendants-Appellees, 

### 21 22 Sheila Andelson, Rebecca Klimek, 

### 23 Valerie Moschiano, James Nichols, 

### 24 Pamela Sheets, 

### 25 Defendants. 

### 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

### 272

FOR APPELLANT: Anthony Falso, pro se, Rochester, 

### 1 2 NY. 

### 3 4 FOR APPELLEE: Linda Prestegaard, Phillips Lytle 

### 5 LLP, Rochester, NY. 

### 6 7 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 

### 8 Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.).



### 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 

### 10 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 

### 11 AFFIRMED

.



### 12 Anthony Falso, pro se, appeals from a January 13, 2009 

### 13 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western 

### 14 District of New York (Larimer, J.). Falso claims, inter 

### 15 alia, employment discrimination and a hostile work 

### 16 environment violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

### 17 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. In the order relevant to 

### 18 this appeal, the district court dismissed Falso’s claims, 

### 19 directing summary judgment for the defendants. We otherwise 

### 20 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, 

### 21 the case’s procedural history, and the issues on appeal.



### 22 The grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. 

### 23 E.g. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 

### 24 (2d Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is appropriate where, 

### 25 drawing “all factual inferences . . . in favor of the 

### 26 non-moving party[,] . . . there are no genuine issues of 

### 27 material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to 

### 28 judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citation omitted). On 

### 29 review, we find no error, and affirm for substantially the 

### 30 reasons stated by the district court in its summary judgment 

### 31 order.



### 32 We have considered Falso’s remaining arguments and find 

### 33 them to be without merit. The district court’s judgment is 

### 34 accordingly AFFIRMED

.


### 35 36 FOR THE COURT: 

### 37 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 

### 38