19

- 1867

- cv

Williams v. County of Nassau

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.

CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS

PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’ S LOCAL RULE 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 ELECTR ONIC DATABASE

(WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ” ). A PARTY CITING TO 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 for the Second Circuit, 1

held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 2

City of New York, on the 2 6 t h d ay of M a y , two thousand twenty

. 3

4

PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL

, 5

RAYMON D J. LOHIER, JR., 6

JOSEPH F. BIANCO

, 7

Circuit Judges

. 8

------------------------------------------------------------------ 9

MARY WILLIAMS, 10

11

Plaintiff

- Appellant

, 12

13

v. No. 19

- 1867 14

15

COUNTY OF NASSAU, MA RY ELIZABETH 16

OSTERMANN, IN HER IN DIVIDUAL AND 17

OFFICIAL CAPACITY, A NTONIO PATINO

, 18

IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AN D OFFICIAL CAPACITY, 19

SERGE A NT STEVEN O’MALLEY, IN HIS 20

INDIVIDUAL AND OFFIC IAL CAPACITY, 21

ACTING SHERIFF MICHA EL J. SPOSATO, IN HI S 222 INDIVIDUAL AND OFFIC IAL CAPACITY, 1

OFFICER PHIL LONIGRO , IN HIS INDIVIDUAL 2

AND OFFICIAL CAPACIT Y, 3

4

Defendants

- Appell ees

. * 5

------------------------------------------------------------------ 6

7

FOR PLAINTIFF

8

APPELLANT: Stephen Bergstein, B ergstein & 9

Ullrich, LLP, New Paltz, NY

, 10

Frederick K. Brewington, Law 11

Offices of Frederick K. 12

Brewington, Hempstead, NY

. 13

14

FOR DEFENDANTS

15

APPELLEES : Deanna Panico, M ichael P. 16

Siravo, Bee Ready Fishbein 17

Hatter & Donovan, LLP, 18

Mineola, NY. 19

20

21

22

23

Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern 24

District of New York ( Denis R. Hurley

, Judge ). 25

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 26

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 27

* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above

.3 Mary Williams , a correctional officer, appeal s from a judgment of the 1

District Court (Hurley, J. ) granting summary judgment in favor of the 2

D efendants

- A ppellees and dismissing her claims of hostile work environment 3

and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et 4

seq.

, and 42 U.S.C § 1981 and § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 5

underlying facts and prior record of proceedings, to which we refer only as 6

necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 7

On appeal, Williams argu es primarily that the District Court failed to 8

consider the tota lity of the factual circumstances to determine whether her work 9

environment was sufficiently hostile or abusive to give rise to a claim under Title 10

VII and under sections 1981 and 1983

. See Leibovitz v. N.Y. C. Transit Auth. , 252 11

F.3d 179, 188 (2d Cir. 2001)

. William s also argues that the District Court erred in 12

dismiss ing her retaliation claim s when the record showed that her employer’s 13

explanations for its conduct were pretextual

. 14

F or substantially the reasons provided by the District Court in its thorough 15

May 28, 2019 memorandum and order , we agree that t he existence of the 16

carvings at issue , though highly offensive

, we re not under the specific 174 circumstances here “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of 1

[Williams’s] employment and create an abusive work ing environment

. ” 2

Feingold v. New York , 366 F.3d 138, 149 (2d Cir. 2004) (quotation marks 3

omitted)

. T here is no record evidence that any emplo yees of Nassau County 4

were responsible for the carvings that Williams claims created the hostile work 5

environment

, see i d. at 150 , and Williams concedes that non

- County employees 6

and inmates had access to the medical unit where the carvings were located

. 7

Williams argues that the District Court failed to consider, as part of the totality of 8

the circumstances surrounding the offensive carvings, the way she was treated 9

by t wo coworkers, but there is no basis in the record for inferring that these race

10

neutral incidents were motivated by Williams’s race. See Kaytor v. Elec. Boat 11

Corp. , 609 F.3d 537, 548 (2d Cir. 2010). W e also agree with the District Court that 12

W illiams’s r etaliation claims fail as a matter of law because she did not produce 13

evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that her employer’s non

14

retaliatory explanations for its actions were pretext for retaliation

. See Zann 15

Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC , 737 F.3d 834, 84 5

– 4 6 (2d Cir. 2013). 16

175 We have considered Williams ’s remaining arguments and conclude that 1

they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the D istrict 2

C ourt is AFFIRMED. 3

FOR THE COURT: 4

Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 5