13-781 Boata v. Pfizer



### 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 Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 19 th** **day of February, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 8 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 11 **Teofil Boata,** 12 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  13 14 **-v.- 13-781-cv** 15 16 **Pfizer, Inc.,** 17 **Defendant-Appellee**
**.** 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 19 20 **FOR APPELLANT:** LAURA M. DILIMETIN, (Steven A. 21 Morelli, on the brief ), The Law 22 Office of Steven A. Morelli, 23 P.C., Garden City, New York. 24 25 **FOR APPELLEE:** PETER MOSKOWITZ, (Jillian Lee 26 Hunt, on the brief ), Jackson 27 Lewis P.C., New York, New York. 28

1Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 1 Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J. ). 2 3 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 4 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 5 **AFFIRMED**

. 6 7 Teofil Boata appeals from a judgment of the United 8 States District Court for the Southern District of New York 9 (Forrest, J. ), granting summary judgment in favor of Pfizer, 10 Inc. (“Pfizer”) on Boata’s claims alleging age, race, and 11 national origin discrimination, and on his retaliation 12 claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 14 presented for review

. 15 16 The district court’s grant of summary judgment is 17 reviewed de novo . See Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady , 728 18 F.3d 149, 154 (2d Cir. 2013). “Summary judgment is 19 appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any 20 material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment 21 as a matter of law.” Id. In making this determination, we 22 “resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual 23 inferences in favor of the party against whom summary 24 judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 128, 137 25 (2d Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is appropriate “[w]here 26 the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier 27 of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. 28 Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 29 Upon reviewing the record de novo , we conclude that summary 30 judgment was properly granted in favor of Pfizer, 31 substantially for the reasons set forth in the district 32 court’s thorough January 31, 2013 Memorandum Decision & 33 Order. 34 35 We have considered all of Boata’s arguments and find 36 them to be without merit. Accordingly, we **AFFIRM** the 37 judgment of the district court. 38 39 FOR THE COURT: 40 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 41 42

2