* Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. 10-1495-cv Hyek v. Field Support Serv., Inc.
**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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 2 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 3 New York, on the 16 thday of February, two thousand twelve. 4 5 PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 Circuit Judges, 8 LEE H. ROSENTHAL, * 9 District Judge. 10 11 12 13 AUDRA HYEK, 14 15 Plaintiff-Appellant , 16 17 v. 10-1495-cv 18 19 FIELD SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., 20 21 Defendant-Appellee. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 292 FOR APPELLANT: AUDRA HYEK, pro se , Uncasville, CT. 1 2 FOR APPELLEE: JOHN T. BAUER (Lisa M. Griffith, on the 3 brief ), Littler Mendelson, P.C., 4 Melville, NY 5 6 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 7 Eastern District of New York (Hurley, J. ). 8 9 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,** 10
**AND DECREED** that the judgment of the United States District 11 Court for the Eastern District of New York is **AFFIRMED.** 12 Plaintiff-Appellant Audra Hyek, pro se , appeals from 13 the Amended Memorandum and Order (the “Order”) of the 14 district court granting summary judgment to Defendant15 Appellee Field Support Services, Inc. and dismissing her 16 claims of gender discrimination and harassment under Title 17 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et 18

seq. (“Title VII”), and the New York State Human Rights Law 19 (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Appellee requests 20 that Appellant’s revised brief and appendix be stricken. We 21 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, 22 the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 23 This Court reviews an order granting summary judgment 24 de novo , and asks whether the district court properly 25 concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact 26 and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a 273 matter of law. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 1 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). In determining whether there 2 are genuine issues of material fact, we are “required to 3 resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual 4 inferences in favor of the party against whom summary 5 judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 128, 137 6 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation 7 omitted). “A dispute regarding a material fact is genuine 8 ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return 9 a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Stuart v. Am. Cyanamid 10
Co. , 158 F.3d 622, 626 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Anderson v. 11 Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). 12 To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under 13 Title VII, Appellant must show that she: (1) belonged to a 14 protected class; (2) was qualified for the position she held 15 or sought; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and 16 (4) did so under circumstances giving rise to an inference 17 of discriminatory intent. Terry , 336 F.3d at 137-38. 18 Claims brought under the NYSHRL “are analyzed identically” 19 and “the outcome of an employment discrimination claim made 20 pursuant to the NYSHRL is the same as it is under . . . 21 Title VII.” Smith v. Xerox Corp. , 196 F.3d 358, 363 n.1 (2d 224 Cir. 1999), overruled on other grounds by Meacham v. Knolls 1 Atomic Power Lab., 461 F.3d 134, 140-41 (2d Cir. 2006). 2 Having conducted an independent review of the record and 3 case law in light of these principles, we affirm the 4 district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons 5 stated by the district court in its thorough Order. 6 We also decline to consider Appellant’s equal 7 protection, due process, Seventh Amendment, and retaliation 8 claims. We find no reason to depart from our general rule 9 that we will not consider claims raised for the first time 10 on appeal. United States v. Lauersen , 648 F.3d 115, 115 (2d 11 Cir. 2011). 12 We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and, 13 after a thorough review of the record, find them to be 14 without merit. Accordingly, we need not address Appellee’s 15 request to strike Appellant’s revised brief and appendix. 16 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 17 18 FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 20 21 22