C irc u it Ju d g e J. C liffo rdW a llac e o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e N in th * C i r cui t , s i tt i ng by des i gnat i on. 09- 4624- cv Sa qi b v . St ei n d eVi s s er& M i nt z, PC UNI TED ST ATES COUR T OF APP EALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RECE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A SUM M A R Y O RDER FI LED ON OR A FTER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FEDERAL RULE OF A PPELLATE PROC EDUR E 32 . 1 AN D THI S CO URT’ S LOC AL RULE 32 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O R D ER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S CO URT, A PARTY M UST CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P PE ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A PA RTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRESENTED BY COU NSEL. A t a s tated term o f th e U n itedS tates C o u rt o f A p p ea ls fo r th e S ec o n dC ircu it, h eld a tthe D ani e l Patr i c k M oyni han U ni t e d St a t e s Courthous e , 500 Pear l Str e e t , i n the Ci ty of N e w Y ork, on the 15 day of June , tw o thous and t e n. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

GE RA RD E . L YNC H, J . CLI FFOR D W ALLA CE, *

C i rcui tJudg es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- SHAHAB SAQI B, Plai nt i f f

-Appellant , v. N o. 09- 4624- c v S T E IN D E V IS S E R& M IN T Z , P C , C P A s , J OH N A ND J AN E DO E,

D ef enda nts -App ellees .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- A P P E A R IN G F O RA P P E L L A N T : S H A H A B S A Q IB , pr o se , N orth B er gen, N ew J e r s e y. A PPE A RING FO R A PPE LLE ES: M I CH A E L A . M IRA N D A , M i r andaSambur s ky S l on e Sk l ar i n V ervenioti s L L P , M i neola , N ew Y ork. A ppe a l f r om a j udgmentof

the Uni t e d St a t e s Di s tr i c tCourtf orthe Ea s t e rn D i s tr i c tof2

N e w Y o rk (N ic h o la s G . G ara u fis , J udge ). UP ON DUE C ONS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, AD J UDGE D, AND D EC RE ED tha tthe j udgmentof the di s tr i c tc ourte nt e r e d on O c t obe r2, 2009, i s AF F I RMED . P ro se p lai n ti ff

S h ah ab S aq ib, a M u sli m m ale bo rn in P ak ist an , ap p eals f rom an aw ard o f s u mmary j u d g me n te n t e r e di n f a v o ro f h i s f o rme re mp l o y e r , St e i n d e Vi s s e r& M i n t z , PC, o n cl ai m s of emp l oy m entdi scr i m i nat i on and r et al i at ory di scharge i n viol at i on of Ti t l e V II of the C i vilR i gh t s A ctof 1964 (“ T i t l e V II ”) , see 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0e etseq. W e r evi ew an aw ar d of s umm ary j udgmentde novo and wi l l a f f i rm onl y i f

the r e c or d, vi e w e d i n the l i ght mostf a vor abl e t o the nonm ovi ng party, r e ve a l s no ge nui ne i s s ue of mat e r i a l f

a c t . See Fed. R. C i v. P . 56( c ) ; A nde r s on v. Li be rty Lobby, I nc . , 477 U . S. 242, 247- 48 ( 1986) ; Redd v. W r i ght , 597 F. 3d 532, 535- 36 ( 2d Ci r . 2010) . To def e a ts umm ary j udgment , how e ve r , the non- movi ng party “ ‘ mustdo more than s i mpl y s how tha tthe r e i s s ome met aphys i c a l doubt as t o the m ater ial f

act s’ ” and “‘ m ay no tre l y o n con cl usory al l egat i on s or unsub st ant i at ed s pe c ul a t i on. ’ ” Je f

f r e ys v. Ci ty of

N e w Y ork, 426 F. 3d 549, 554 ( 2d Ci r . 2005) ( quot i ng M at sushi t a Ele c. Indus. C o. v. Z eni th R adi o C orp. , 47 5 U . S . 57 4, 58 6 (198 6), and F uji t su L t d. v. F ed. E xp re ss Co rp. , 2 47 F . 3d 4 23 , 4 28 (2d C i r. 2 00 1)) . In appl ying these pr i nci ple s, we a s s u me th e p art i e s ’ f a mi l i ar i ty wi th th e f

a c t s an dr e c o r do f

p r i o rp r o c e e d i n g s , wh i c h we r e f e r e n c e o n l y a s n e c e s s ary t o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i rm. S aq ib ’s c laim s a re a n aly ze du n d er th e fa m ili ar b u rd en -sh ift in g fram ew o rkse t fo rth in M cD o n n ell D o u g las C o rp . v . G ree n , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 -0 3 (1 9 7 3 ). T o estab lish a p rim a fa cie cas e of e mpl oymentdi s c r i mi na t i on, the pl a i nt i f f musts how ( 1) member s hi p i n apr ot e c t ed3

c l a s s , ( 2) s a t i s f

a c t ory j ob pe r f

ormanc e , ( 3) an a dve r s e e mpl oym e nta c t i on, and ( 4) c i r c umst anc e s gi vi ng r i s e t o an i nf e r e nc e of pros c r i be d di s c r i mi na t i on. See i d. ; Shum w ay v. U ni t e d Par c e l Serv. , I nc . , 118 F. 3d 60, 63 ( 2d Ci r . 1997) . To es t abl i s h apr i ma f a c i e c a s e of reta liatio n , the p lain tif

f m u st sh o w (1 ) h is en g ag em en t i n a p ro tec ted activ ity , (2 ) d efe n d an t’s aw ar e ne s s of

tha ta c t i vi ty, (3) an a dve r s e a c t i on, and ( 4) ac aus a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty and the a dve r s e a c t i on. See H ol t z v. Rocke f e l l e r& Co. , 258 F. 3d 62, 79 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). S aqi b’s al l egat i on s of

dis cr i m i nat i on f

or the m ostpartconsi stof or dinary w orkpla ce i nte ra ct i on s, oft en w i th n o indi cat i on of har ass m entof any kind, and cert ainly no evi dence thatthey re l at ed t o his ethn i ci ty o r r el i gion. S ee J ef f re ys v. C i ty o f

N ew Y ork, 42 6 F . 3d at 554; M e i r i v. D a c on, 759 F. 2d 989, 998 ( 2d Ci r . 1985) . The one i nc i de nttha tha s any ove rt one of

ani mus i s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o r ai se an i nf

e r e nc e of

di s c r i mi na t i on. Even i f the al l egat i on thatac o-w orkercom m ent ed thatS aqi b “l oo ked li ke a t error i st ” w hen h e w ore an ove r c oa tt o w ork i n w arm w e a the rw e r e c ons true d t o e vi de nc e s ome pr os c r i be d bi a s , se e 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e-2( a) , i tw ou l d be insuf f i ci entto st at e a pri m a f

aci e dis cr i m i nat i on cl ai m , see , e . g. , A ul i c i no v. N . Y . Ci ty Dep’ tof Hom e l e s s Se rvs . , 580 F. 3d 73, 83 ( 2d Ci r . 2009) ( “ For r a c i s tc omm e nt s , s l ur s , and j oke s t o c ons t i tut e ahos t i l e w ork envi r onment. . . the r e mustbe m o re th an afe w is o la te din c id e n ts o f r a c ia l e n m ity .” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m ark s o m itte d )) . T h e ab se n ce o f su p p o rt fo r S aq ib ’s h o stile w o rken v iro n m en t claim n ec es sa rily p rec lu d es h im fro m sta tin g a re talia tio n cla im u n d er T itl e V II. T o d em o n stra te th at a co m p lain t o f w o rkp lac e h ara ss m en t co n stitu tes p ro tec ted ac tiv ity u n d er T itl e V II, a p lain tif f4

musts how tha the r e a s onabl y be l i e ve d the c onduc tatis sue w a s unl aw f ul . See K e s s l e rv. W est chest er C ou nty D ep’ tof Soc. S ervs. , 46 1 F . 3d 19 9, 21 0 (2d C i r. 20 06 ) ( no t i ng that “prot ect ed act i vity” el emen to f T i t l e V II cl ai m requi re s “goo d fa i th, re asonabl e bel i ef ” that pl a i nt i f f i s oppos i ng unl aw f

ul e mpl oymentpr a c t i c e ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m arks omi tt e d) ) . The rec o rdfails to su p p o rt su ch a b elief. W e h av e co n sideredS aq ib’s other arg u m en ts on ap p eal and co n clu d e that th ey are w ith o u t m e ri t. A c c o rd in g ly , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rtis A F F IR M E D . In addi t i on , because S aqi b has f i l ed a num ber of

basel ess appeal s w i th thi s court , see Saqib v. Sal va t or e A l bane s e & Co. , N o. 08- 0966- c v ( 2d Ci r . June 16, 2008) ( or de rde nyi ng lea v e to p ro ce ed in form a p au p eris an dd ism iss in g ap p ea l be ca u se itlac k ed arg u ab le b as is in l aw orf a c t ) ; Saqib v. Fed. Bure au of I nve s t i ga t i on, N o. 07- 5251- c v (2d Ci r . Feb. 27, 2008) ( s a me) , he i s he r e by pl a c e d on not i c e thati f he c ont i nue s t o abus e the j udi c i a l pr oc e s s by fi li n g f ri v o lou s app eals, th e cou rtm ay enter an i n jun cti o n direct ing th e C lerkt o refu se to ac ce p t an y fu rth er s ub m iss io n s fro m S a q ib u n les s h e first o b tain s le av e o f th e c o u rt to fil e s u c h p ap e rs . FOR THE C OU RT: C A T H E R IN E O ' H A G A N W O L F E , C lerko f C o u rt