08
- 45 79
- cv C l ay bor ne v. O C E B us i nes s Ser v.



### 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 NG S BY SUM M AR Y O RD E R DO NOT HAVE P RE CE DENT I AL E F F E CT . C I T ATI ON TO A S UM M AR Y O RD ER F I LE D O N O R A FT ER J ANU AR Y 1, 2007, I S P E RM I T T E D AN D I S GOV E RN E D B Y F EDERAL R U LE O F A PP EL LATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 .1 A N D TH I S C OURT ’ S L OC AL R ULE 32. 1. 1. W H EN CI TI N G A SU M M A RY O RD ER I N A D O CU M EN T FI LED W I TH TH I S C OURT , A PA RT Y M U ST CI TE EI THER THE F EDERAL A PPEND I X O R A N ELECTRONI C D ATAB ASE ( W I T H T HE NOT AT I ON “ SUM M AR Y O RD ER ”). A PARTY CI TI NG A SUM M AR Y O RD ER M UST S ERVE A C OPY O F I T ON A NY PARTY N OT REPRES ENTED BY CO UN SE L . At a st ated ter m of

the United Stat es Court of Appeals for the Second Cir cuit, held a t the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse , 500 Pearl Street, i n the City of New York, on the 18 day of th June, two thousand and t en. PRESENT : ROGER

J. MINER, ROBER T D. SACK , PETER W . HALL,

Ci rcu it J ud ges .

_______________________________________________ Glen M. Clayborne, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. No . 0 8-4 57 9-c v OC E B us ine ss S erv ice s, De fen da nt- Ap pe lle e.

______________________________________________ F o r Ap p e ll an t: GLE N M . CL AYB ORNE, pr o s e , Brooklyn, New York. Fo r App ell ee: CL IF FO RD R. ATL AS , M ARJO RI E KAYE, JR., Jackson & Lewis LLP, New York, New York. UP ON DU E C ON SI DE RA TI ON , it is her eby ORDERED , ADJUDGED AND DECRE ED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt i s AFFIRMED
.2

Plaintiff-AppellantGlen M. Clayborne, pro s e , a pp eal s f rom the jud gm ent of

the Un ite d St ate s D istric t C ourt f

or t he So uth ern

Di str ict of Ne w Y ork

(W oo d, J. ), g rantin g s um m ary jud gm en t to Ap pe lle e o n App ell ant’s em plo ym ent di scr im inatio n c lai m s b rou gh t pu rsu ant to Title VII of the Civi l Rights Act of 1964. We assum e the part ies’ familiarit y with the facts and procedural history. Up on a li be ral co ns tru cti on

of his bri ef , App ell ant ap pe ars to b e ch all en gin g s um m ary jud gm en t on

his cla im s o f u

nlawf ul t erm inatio n. He do es n ot a sse rt i n th is C ourt anyarg um ents that: ( 1) h is 2 00 4 p erf

orm an ce e va luatio n w as r eta liator y; ( 2) t he co mm ents m ad e b y area
su pe rvi so rs and

his ass ignm ent to un favo rab le t ask s am ounte d to a h os til e w ork envir onm ent; (3) he wa s as sig ne d unf

av ora ble tas ks as r eta liatio n; o r (4 ) any c lai m s ar isi ng pri or t o M arc h 2004 were timely. Thus, we find those clai ms and argum ents are wai ved on appeal. Se e LoSacco v. City of M

iddletown , 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir . 1995) (holding t hat, when a lit igant rai ses aniss ue be fo re the dis tri ct c ourt b ut d oe s n ot r ais e it on ap pe al, it i s ab an do ne d, an d th at this rul e may be applied to pro s e lit igants ). T he on ly i ssu e re m ain ingon ap pe al i s whe the r Appellant’s termination was an actof discrimination and/orretali ation. A districtcourt’s gr ant of summ ary judgment is revie wed deno vo , construing t he evidence in t he light most favorable to t he non-moving party. Se e Mi lle r v. Wol po ff & Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). To establish a cl aim of discrimination ba sed on rac e in a T itl e V II a cti on , th e b urd ensh if tin g ana lys is und er the McDonnell-Douglas framew ork applies
. Se e Ma thi ra mp uz ha v. Po tte r , 5 48 F. 3d 70 , 7 8 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ); McG uin ness
v. Li nc oln Ha ll , 2 63 F. 3d 49 , 5 3 (2 d C ir. 20 01 ). T hu s, a p lai nti ff m us t es tab lis h an in iti al prima fac ie claim of discrimination . S ee M cD on ne ll D ou

gla s C or p. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 8023

(19 73 ). T he burde n o f p rod uc tio n th ensh if

ts t o th e em

plo ye r to de m on str ate a le git im ate , nondiscriminatory purpose for the employm ent decisi on. Id. On ce t he em plo ye r ha s m et this burden, the burde n shifts back to t he plainti ff to dem onstrate , by a preponderanc e of the evidence, tha t the nondisc riminatory reason was merely a pr etext for disc rimination. Id. at 804- 05. The ultimate burden of persuasi on is always on the plainti ff, who m ust demonstrate thatthe employer’s action was pr ompted by an im permissible motive. Se e S t. M ar y’s Ho no r C

tr. v. Hi cks , 5 09 U. S. 50 2, 51 1-1 2, 51 8 (1 99 3). Here, as explai ned in more detail in t he well-re asoned reportand recomm endation of the
m ag istrat e ju dg e an d th e d eci sio n o f t he dis tri ct c ourt, Ap pe llant d id n ot e sta bli sha pr im a fa cie case and did notcarry his burden of establi shing that t he reason proffered by Appell ee OCE Business Servic es (“OBS”) for the ter mination, i.e
. , a reducti on in the work force, was a pr etext for discrimination. We also find to be without merit t he Appellant’ s new asserti ons in his bri ef: (1) that O BS ha d a

ho lid aypartysh ort ly a ft er h is t erm inatio n s he ds do ub t on OB S’ s cl aim

that it needed to cut i ts work force; and ( 2) that hi s manager, Brian Gurriere , had placed him in a permanent position in t he accounting de partment undercuts t he claim that the ac counting department could not afford Appellant ’s salary. Fi rst , App ell ant di d n ot p res ent th e h oli day p arty argum ent in the dis tri ct c ourt. Th is Court general ly will not c onsider an i ssue rais ed for the first t ime on appeal. Se e S ingleton v. Wul ff , 4 28 U. S. 10 6, 12 0-2 1 (1 97 6); see also Virgi lio v. City of N.Y. , 4 07 F. 3d

10 5, 11 6 (2 d C ir. 20 05 ), and

Ap pe llant h as n ot e sta

bli sh ed m an if est or o bv iou s in

jus tic e su ff

ici ent f or u s to exercise our discre tion to consi der the is sue, see Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp. , 900 F. 2d 52 2, 52 7 (2 d C ir. 19 90 ). E ve n if the all eg ati on

we re t o b e co ns ide red , App ell ant pr ese nte d4

no ev ide nc e to su

pp ort his ass ert ion

that O BS ha d an e m

plo ye e h oli day p arty o r any e vid en ce t o connect the e xpense of a holiday par ty to OBS’s nee d to cut it s work force due to the l oss of a cli en t. T he un su

pp ort ed all eg ati on

is i ns uf fi cie nt, the ref

ore , to cre ate a g enuin e is su e o f m ate ria l fact to defeat a summ ary judgment motion. Se e F letch er v . A tex

, In c. , 68 F.3d 1451, 1456 (2d Ci r. 1 99 5) ( “[ M] ere co nc lus ory all eg ati on s o r de nia ls i n le ga l m em orand a o r or al argum ent ar e
no t ev ide nc e an d c anno t by the m sel ve s cr eat e a g enuin e is su e o f m ate ria l f act wh ere no ne wo uld oth erw ise ex ist .” (inter

na l qu otatio n m ark s o m itt ed )); see also Unite d States v. 15 Blac k Ledge Dr ive , 8 97 F. 2d

97 , 1 02 -03 (2d

Ci r. 1 99 0). Ne xt, to t he ex tent App ell ant ar gu es t hat he wa s n ot a

fl oatin g m an ag er, he ap pe ars to
ass ert that (1 ) he sh ou ld n ot h av e b een ter m inated wi th o the r f

loatin g m an ag ers ; (2 ) Gue rri ere told him that he was ter minated because the acc ounting depart ment could not afford him ; and (3) the rea so n g ive n f

or h is t erm inatio n w as f

als e b eca us e Gue rri ere kn ewhis sal ary be fo re pla cin g h im

in t he po sit ion

in t he acc ounti ng de partm ent. A pp ell ant ac kn ow led ge d in his deposition, however , that at t he time of his termination he was a floating manager, and he provided no evide nce to establish thathe held a permanent posit ion in the ac counting department. In additi on, Appellant’s latestperformance evaluation st ated thathe was a floating manager. Conclusory allegat ions cannot cr eate a genui ne issue of fact, seeFletc he r , 6 8 F .3 d at 1456, nor may a party “creat e an issue of fact by submitting an affidavitin oppositi on to a
summ ary judgment motion that, by omission or addition, c ontradict s the affiant’s pr evious de po sit ion

tes tim ony, ” Ha

yes v. N. Y. Ci ty D ep ’t o

f C orr. , 8 4 F .3 d 6 14 , 6 19 (2d Ci r. 1 99 6); see also Raskin v. W

yatt Co. , 1 25 F. 3d

55 , 6 3 (2 d C ir. 19 97 ). T he un dis puted ev ide nc e w as t

hat Appellant was a float ing manager, and the unsupporte d asserti ons that Appell ant held a5

permanent position and t hat he was ter minated under the pret ext that t he accounting de partment could not afford his sal ary are i nsufficient to cre ate a genuine issue of fact. Even if Appellant
we re a ble to e sta

bli shthat he he ld a

pe rm an ent po sit ion

an d th at O BS ’s r eas on

fo r hi s ter m inatio n w as t

he ref ore fa lse , h e p rov ide d n o e vid en ce t o s ho w that th e re al r eas on fo r hi s termination was discr imination. See Fisher v. Vassar College , 7 0 F .3 d 1 42 0, 14 33 (2d Ci r. 19 95 ) (e xp lai nin g th at, to e sta bli shpre tex t, t

he pla int if

f m us t sh owbo th t

hat th e re aso n w as f

als e
an d th at d isc rim inatio n w as t he rea l re aso n). W e have revie wed Appellant’s r emaining arguments and find them to be without m erit. For the reas ons stated above, the judgment of the distri ct court i s AFFIRMED.

FO R T HE CO UR T: Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk