13-781

Boata v. Pfizer

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

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 19th 4 day of February, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

8 GERARD E. LYNCH,

9 Circuit Judges.

10

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

12 Teofil Boata, 

13 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

14

15 -v.- 13-781-cv

16

17 Pfizer, Inc.,

18 Defendant-Appellee.

19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

20

21 FOR APPELLANT: LAURA M. DILIMETIN, (Steven A.

22 Morelli, on the brief), The Law

23 Office of Steven A. Morelli,

24 P.C., Garden City, New York.

25

26 FOR APPELLEE: PETER MOSKOWITZ, (Jillian Lee

27 Hunt, on the brief), Jackson

28 Lewis P.C., New York, New York. 

1
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

2 Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.).

3

4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

5 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

6 AFFIRMED. 

7

8 Teofil Boata appeals from a judgment of the United

9 States District Court for the Southern District of New York

10 (Forrest, J.), granting summary judgment in favor of Pfizer,

11 Inc. (“Pfizer”) on Boata’s claims alleging age, race, and

12 national origin discrimination, and on his retaliation

13 claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

14 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues

15 presented for review.

16

17 The district court’s grant of summary judgment is

18 reviewed de novo. See Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 728

19 F.3d 149, 154 (2d Cir. 2013). “Summary judgment is

20 appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any

21 material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment

22 as a matter of law.” Id. In making this determination, we

23 “resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual

24 inferences in favor of the party against whom summary

25 judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137

26 (2d Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is appropriate “[w]here

27 the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier

28 of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec.

29 Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 

30 Upon reviewing the record de novo, we conclude that summary

31 judgment was properly granted in favor of Pfizer,

32 substantially for the reasons set forth in the district

33 court’s thorough January 31, 2013 Memorandum Decision &

34 Order.

35

36 We have considered all of Boata’s arguments and find

37 them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the

38 judgment of the district court.

39

40 FOR THE COURT:

41 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

42

2