12-2727-cv Davis v. Mount Saint Mary College
**UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 
**SUMMARY ORDER**

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W** **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A**  **PPENDIX 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**  **.** At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 1 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 2 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 3 on the 21 st day of March, two thousand thirteen. 4 5 PRESENT: J OHN M. WALKER , J R ., 6 R OBERT D. S ACK , 7 R ICHARD C. W ESLEY , 8 9 Circuit Judges

. 10 11 12 13 DUANE DAVIS, 14 15 Plaintiff-Appellant , 16 17 -v.- 12-2727-cv 18 19 MOUNT SAINT MARY COLLEGE, 20 21 Defendant-Appellee. 22 23 24 FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL H. SUSSMAN, Sussman & Watkins, 25 Goshen, NY. 26 27 FOR APPELLEE: JAMES P. DROHAN (Laura Wong-Pan, on the 28 brief ), Thomas, Drohan, Waxman, Petigrow 29 & Mayle, LLP, Hopewell Junction, NY. 30 31 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 32 Southern District of New York (Seibel, J .). 33**UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 1
**AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 2

**AFFIRMED**
. 3 Plaintiff-Appellant Duane Davis("Davis")appeals from 4 the June 28, 2012 decision and order of the United States 5 District Court for the Southern District of New York 6 (Seibel, J .) granting summary judgment in favor of 7 Defendant-Appellee Mount Saint Mary College (the “College”). 8 Davis was the College’s part-time, men’s basketball 9 coach for fourteen consecutive seasons pursuant to a series 10 of one-year contracts, until he resigned after learning 11 that, after three consecutive losing seasons, the College 12 would not be renewing his contract for the 2009-2010 season. 13 After Davis resigned at age 69, the College created a new 14 position for a full-time, men’s basketball coach, formed a 15 search committee to interview applicants, and, after 16 interviewing six individuals, hired Ryan Kadlubowski at age 17 26. Subsequently, Davis sued the College claiming that the 18 decision not to renew his contract was an adverse employment 19 action motivated solely by his age in violation of the Age 20 Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 21 et seq . We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 22

2underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 1 presented for review. 2 ADEA claims are analyzed under McDonnell Douglas ’s 3 three-step burden-shifting framework. See Gorzynski v. 4 JetBlue Airways Corp. , 596 F.3d 93, 106 (2d Cir. 2010). 5 Davis only claims that the district court erred at step 6 three in light of three facts: (1) he was more experienced 7 than Kadlubowski, (2) the Athletic Director made a stray 8 comment that Kadlubowski was an “impressive young man,” and 9 (3) the College renewed contracts for younger coaches of 10 different sports that had similar or worse records than he 11 did. Considering the totality of the circumstances as we 12 must, these facts do not reasonably suggest that age was the 13 ‘but for’ cause of the College’s decision. Gorzynski , 596 14 F.3d at 106. For substantially the same reasons as the 15 district court articulated in a comprehensive 28-page 16 opinion, we affirm. 17 We have considered all of Davis’ arguments on appeal 18 and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing 19 reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby 20
**AFFIRMED**
. 21 FOR THE COURT: 22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 23 24 25

3