C irc u it Ju d g e J. C liffo rdW a llac e o f th e U n itedS tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e N in th * C i r cui t , s i tt i ng by des i gnat i on. T h e Cl e rko f

th e Co u rti s d i r e c t e dt o a me n dth e o f f i c i a l c ap t i o n t o r e a da s s h o wn ** above. 09 - 40 44 - cv H ar gettv. M etr o. Tr ans p. A ut h. UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RECE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED O N O R A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PERM I TTED A ND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND TH I S COU RT’ S LOCA L RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E LE CTR ON I C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A ta st at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C ourtof A ppeal s f

orthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at the D ani elPatr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 16 day of June, tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

GE RA RD E . L YNC H, J . CLI FF OR D W ALLA CE, *

C i r cui tJudges .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - D A V ID T . H A R G E T T ,

P lai nt i f f

-Appellant , v. N o. 09- 4044- cv M E T RO P OL I T AN T RA NS P OR T AT I ON AUT HOR I T Y, KEN NEA L, J AM ES HA RD ING , STATE OF N EW YOR K, D e fen da n ts , NEW YO RK CI TY TR AN SI T AU THO RI TY, STAN LEY GR I L L , DAVI D R OS S , M AY MCINT OS H,

C ons ol i dated-D ef

endant s -Appellees . **

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- ---2

AP P E AR ING F ORAP P E L L ANT : D A V ID T . H A R G E T T , pro se , D anbur y, C o n n e c ticu t. A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L E E S : R O B E R T K . D R IN A N (G e n aU s e n h e im e r, on the br i ef ), O ffi ce o f th e G en era l C o u n sel, N ew Y o rk C i ty T r ans i tA uthor i ty, B r ookl yn, N ew Y ork. A p p ea l f rom the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfor the S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (C o lle e n M c M a h o n , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HER E BY ORDE RE D, ADJUDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourtent er ed on A ugus t5, 2009, i s AF F I RMED . P ro se p la in tiff D a v idT . H a rg e tt ap p e a ls fro m a n a w a rdo f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f avorof def endant s , the N ew Y ork C i ty T r ans i tA uthor i ty, St anl ey G r i l l , D avi d R os s , and M ay M cI nt os h ( col l ecti vel y, the “N Y C T A d efe ndant s ”) , on hi s w r ongf ul t erm i nat i on and re talia tio n c laim s b ro u g h t p u rsu a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 ; th e A g e D is c rim in a tio n in E m p loy m en t A ct, 2 9 U . S . C . § 6 2 1 et seq . ; an dN ew Y o rk state l aw . W e re v iew a su m m ary j udgm entaw ar d de novo, vi ew i ng the f act s i n the l i ghtm os tf

avorabl e to the non- m ovi ng p a rty . S e e H a v e y v . H o m e b o u n dM o rtg a g e , In c ., 5 4 7 F .3 d1 5 8 , 1 6 3 (2 dC ir. 2 0 0 8 ). W h ile w e w illn o t up h o lda n aw a rdo f su m m a ry jud g m e n t i n fav o r o f d e fe n d a n ts if th e e v id e n c e is s uf f i ci entt o perm i ta r eas onabl e j ury t o f i nd f orH ar gett , h e m ustpoi ntt o m or e than a “s ci nt i l l a” of

s upport i ng evi dence t o def eats um m ary j udgm ent . I d. ( i nt ernalquot at i on m arks om i tt ed) ; s ee al s o A nder s on v. Li berty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U . S. 242, 252 ( 1986) . I n appl yi ng thes e p ri n ciples to this ap p ea l, w e assu m e the p arti es’ fam il iari ty w ith the fa cts an dthe re co rd of pr i orpr ocee di ngs , w hi ch w e r ef er ence onl y as nece s s ary t o expl ai n ourdeci s i on.3

U pon i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d, w e conc l ude f ors ubs t ant i al l y the r eas ons sta ted inth e d istric t co u rt’s th o ro u g h a n dw e ll-re a so n e do p in io n th a t th e N Y C T A d e fe n d a n ts w er e enti t l ed t o s um m ary j udgm ent . See H ar gettv. N . Y . C i ty T r ans i tA uth. , N o. 06 C i v. 7094 ( S. D . N . Y . Aug. 5 , 2 00 9) . W e h a ve c on s i de r e d H a r ge tt ’ s r e mai ni ng ar gu ment s on appea l and conclude thatthey ar e w i thoutm er i t . A ccor di ngl y, the A ugus t5, 2009 j udgm ent o f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s AF F I RMED . FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G AN W O L F E , C lerko f C o urt