08- 4230- cv

Kha n v . Ba n ko

f Ame r i c a , N. A. 

### UN I TED STATES CO UR T O F APP EALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR Y O RD ER R ULI NGS BY S UM M ARY ORDER DO NO T HAVE P RECEDE NTI AL E FF ECT . C I TATI ON TO A S UM M ARY ORDER FI LED ON O R AFT ER J ANUARY 1, 2007, I S PE RM I TTE D AND I S GO VERNED BY F EDERAL R ULE O F A PP ELL ATE P ROCEDURE 3 2 .1 AND THI S COURT ’ S L OCAL R ULE 32. 1. 1. W H EN CI TI NG A SUM M ARY ORDER I N A DOCUM ENT FI LED W I TH THI S COURT , A P ARTY M US T CI TE EI THER THE F EDERAL A PP ENDI X OR AN ELE CTRONI C DATAB AS E ( W I TH THE NO TATI ON “ S UM M ARY ORDER ” ). A P ARTY CI TI NG A SUM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY PART Y NOT REP RES ENTE D BY COUNS EL . 1 At a s tat ed te rm o f the Unit ed

S tat es Co urt

o f Ap pe als f

or the S eco nd

C irc uit , held at the Dan iel 2 Patri ck

Mo yn ihan C ourth ou se, 50 0 P ear l S tre et, in the City of N ewYo rk, on

the 21 day o f A

pri l, st 3 two thousand and ten. 4 5 PRESENT : 6 JOHN M. WALKER, JR ., 7 DEBRAANN LIVING STON, 8 GERAR D E. LYNC H, 9 Ci rcu it J ud ges . 10

_______________________________________________ 11 12 ATIF J. KHAN , 13 14 Plaintif f-Appellant , 15 v. No . 0 8-4 23 0-c v 16 17 BANK O F AMERICA, N .A., 18 19 De fen da nt- Ap pe lle e . 20

______________________________________________ 21 22 23 FOR APP ELLANT: A TI F J. KHAN , pro s e , Saugerties , NY 24 25 FOR APP ELLEE: J A M ES J. R OON EY , Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, 26 Buffalo, NY 27 28 29 30 Ap pe al f

rom a ju dg m ent of

the Un ite d S tat es D istric t C ourt f or t he N ort he rn Di str ict

o f N ew 31 York (Hurd, J. ).2

1 UP ON DU E C ON SI DE RA TI ON , it is her eby ORDERED , ADJUDGED , AND 2 DECRE ED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt b e AFFIRMED . 3 Plain ti ff-Appellant Ati f J. Khan, pro s e , a pp eal s f rom a ju dg m ent of

the Un ite d S tat es 4 DistrictCourt for the Northern Districtof New York (Hurd, J. ), granti ng summ ary judgment in favor 5 of Defendant-Appellee Bank of Am erica, N.A., in Appe llant’ s employm ent discr imination action 6 bro ug ht u

nd er T itl e V II o f th e Ci vil Rig hts Act of 1 96 4 (“ Ti tle VI I”) , 4 2 U .S .C . § 20 00 e et seq. , and 7 the Americans with Disabil ities Act(“AD A” ), 4 2 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq. W e as sum e th e p art ies ’ 8 fam iliar ity with t he under lying facts, t he proc edural history of the case, and the issues pre sented on 9 ap pe al. 10 W e review an order grant ing summ ary judgment de no vo . Sum

m ary jud gm ent is ap pro pri ate 11 wh enthe re are n o g enuin e is su es o f m ate ria l f act an d th e m ov ingpartyis e nti tle d to jud gm ent as a 12 matter of law. See Mill er v. Wo lp of f & Ab ramson, L.L.P. , 3 21 F. 3d29 2, 30 0 ( 2dCi r. 20 03 ). We 13 may af

firm on any basis apparent in the recor d. Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. , 460 F.3d 400, 14 405 (2d Cir. 2006). 15 W e co nc lud e th at, ev enif App ell ant h ad

m ad e o ut a pr im a fa cie cas e o f d isa bil ity , n ati on al 16 origin, or r eligious di scrimination, Appelle e proffered legiti mate, non-discriminatory rea sons for 17 Ap pe llant’ s te rm inatio n — sp ecif ica lly , p erf

orm an ce e rro rs and

be havio ral iss ue s ab out whic h 18 Appellant had bee n warned — and Appellantproduced no evidenc e that ra ises a genui ne question 19 of f

act regarding whethe r these r easons were pre textual. See Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdi ne , 20 45 0 U .S . 2 48 , 2 56 (19 81 ); McD on ne ll D ou gla s C or p. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 804-05 (1973). 21 Appellant ass erts on appeal that his supervisors had knowledge of his m edical condi tion and 22 nati on al origi n. That employees of Appellee merely had this knowledge, however , is insufficient 23 evidence tha t Appellee’ s proffered rea so ns for Khan’s termination were pretextual. To the extent3

1 Ap pe llant argu es t hat hi s su pe rvi so rs b locked his ap pli cat ion to t ran sf er t o an o pe rat ion s an aly st 2 po sit ion

by iss uin g him

a written war nin g fo llo wi ng his inter

vie w, App ell ant pro du ces no e vid en ce 3 that the hi ring managers knew of this warni ng , and he pr oduces no evidence to suggest t hat the 4 warni ng it sel f wa s im pe rm iss ibl e ret ali ati on . A s to the re m ain de r o f Ap pellant’s ar gum ents 5 reg ard inghis cla im s und er T itl e V II f or r etalia tion an d f

or r eli gio us an d n ati on al o rig in 6 discrimination, we affirm for substantiall y the same reasons stat ed i n th e dist rict cour t’s opini on 7 below. 8 As to Appellant’ s ADA claim, A ppellant r el ie s on a co-worker’ s depositi on testimony 9 regarding hi s belief that Appellant’s disabilit y was the basis for his termination. In this te stimony, 10 however, the deponentadmitted that his c onclusion was based only on a “gutfeeling,” and tha t he 11 co uld

no t expla in o r poi nt t o anysp eci fi c ev ide nc e re lat ingto anyoth er b asi s f or h is b eli ef

that 12 Appellant was si ngled out becaus e of his disabil ity. W e conclude that this testimony is insufficient 13 to r ais e a g enuin e is su e o f f act reg ard ingpre tex t. F ina lly , wi th res pe ct to A pp ell ant’s ass ert ion

that 14 he wa s d en ied

sh ort -te rm

dis ab ili ty b en ef

its , h e co nc ed es o n a

pp eal that he was no t entit led to s uc h 15 benefits priorto May 25, 2005, and he produces no evidence that contradi cts Appellee’s conc lusion 16 that he w as no t ent itl ed to suc h be ne fi ts af

ter that date b eca

us e b y th at p oint th ere wa s n o m ed ica l 17 information supporting a finding of disabi lity. 18 W e have carefull y conside re d al l Appellant’ s other ar guments m ade on appeal, i ncluding 19 those rai sed in Appellant ’s supplemental submission to this Court of March 3, 2010, and conclude 20 that th eyare wi tho ut m eri t. F or t he fo reg oin g re aso ns , th e ju dg m ent of the distr ict court

is 21 AFFIRMED. 22 23 FOR THE COURT : 24 Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk 25 26