09- 0996 -cv

Bron zi ni v. C la ssi c Se cur it y LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS

FOR TH E SECOND CIRCUIT SUMM ARY ORDER
RU LI NGS BYS UMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAV E PRECE DEN TI AL EFFE CT. CIT ATI ON T O A SU MMARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR AF TER JAN UA RY 1, 200 7, IS PERMI TTE D AN D I S GOVE RN ED BY FED ERA L RU LE OF APP ELL ATE PR OCE DU RE 32 .1 AN D T HI S COU RT’ S LOC AL RU LE 32 .1 .1 . WHEN CI TI NG AS UMMARY ORDER I N ADOC UMEN T FI LED WI TH T HI S COURT, A PARTYMUS T C IT E EI THER THE FEDER

AL APP END IX OR A N E LEC TRO NI C D ATA BAS E ( WIT H THE NOT ATI ON “S UMMARY ORDER ”) . A P AR TY CI TI NG A SU MMARY ORDER MU ST S ERV E ACOP Y OF I T ON AN Y PAR TY NOT RE PRE SE NTE D B Y C OUN SE L. At a stated term of

the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Stree t, in the City of New York, on the 6 day of April, two thousand ten. th PR ES EN T: RO BE RT D. SA CK ,

RE EN A R

AG GI , PE TE R W. HA LL ,

Ci rc ui t J ud ges .

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LO LI TA BR ON ZI NI ,

Plaintiff-Appellant , EIMONT BRONZINI,

Consolidated-Plaintiff-Appellant , v. No . 0 9- 09 96 -c v CLASSIC SECURITY L.L.C.,

De fe nd an t- Ap pe ll ee .

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- A P P E A R I N G F O R A P P E L L AN T S : EIMONT BR ON ZI NI (L ol it a B ro nzini, on the br ie f ), pro se, Brooklyn, New York. A P P E A R I N G F O R

A P P E L L E E : AN DR EW W. SI NG ER , T annenbaumHe lp ern

Sy ra cu se & Hi rs ch tr itt L LP , N ewYo rk , N ew York.2

UP ON DU E C ON SI DE RA TI ON , I T I S H ER EB Y ORDE RE D, A DJ UD GE D A ND DE CR EE D tha t the ju dg m en t o f th e d is tr ic t c ourt

is AF FI RME D. Pro se pl ai nt if

f s L ol it a and

Ei m on t Br on zi ni app ea l f ro mthe January15 , 2 00 9 o rd er of th e U ni te d S ta te s D is tr ic t C ourt f or th e S outhern Distr ic t o f Ne w Y ork ( Haro ld

Ba er , Judge ) granting summ ary judgment in f avor of defendant Classic Securit y L. L. C. on plaintiff s’ discrimination claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII ”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Empl oyment Act of 1967 (“ AD EA ”) , 29 U. S. C. § 6 21 et se q. ; the Am er ic an s w ith D is ab il it ie s A ct of 19 90 (“ AD A” ), 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq.; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d); the Fam il y and

Med ic al Le av e A ct

of 19 93 (“ FML A” ), 29 U. S. C. § 260 1 et seq .; th e N ewYo rk State Hum anRi gh ts Law, N. Y. Ex ec . L aw§ 2 90 et se q. ; and th e N ewYo rk

Ci tyHum an Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history. We review de novo orders granting summ ary judgment, f ocusing o n whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and th at th e m ov in g p artywa s e nt it le d t o j ud gm en t a s am atte r o f law. Se e Miller v. W olpoff & Ab ra mso n, L.L .P ., 321 F. 3d29 2, 30 0 ( 2dCi r. 20 03 ). W e a na ly ze di sc ri min at io n c la ims under the burden-shifting analysis established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 7 92 ( 19 73 ). Se e McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. M fg. Co., 583 F.3d 92, 96-97 (2d Cir. 2009) (ADA); Potenza v. City of New York, 365 F.3d 165, 167-68 (2d Cir. 2004) (FMLA); Tomassi v. Insignia F in

. Gr oup, Inc., 478 F.3d 111, 114-15 (2d Cir. 2007) (ADEA).3

We independently conclude, for substantially the reasons stated by the district court, that plaintiff

s failed to adduce evidence th at would permit a reasonable factfinder to
co nc lu d e th at

d e f e n dant ’s no n- di sc ri m in at or y, le gi ti m at e b us in es s r ea so ns f or th e c ha ll en ge d
em pl oy m en t a ct io ns we re a p re te xt f or di sc ri m in at io n. Se e Te xa s De p’ t o f Cmty . A f

f ai rs v. Burdine , 4 50 U .S

. 24 8, 25 4- 55 (1 98 1) ; Mc Do nn el l D ou gl as Co rp . v . G re en , 4 11 U. S. at 80 2- 04 ; s ee al so Fi sh er

v. Va ss ar

Co ll ., 70 F. 3d

14 20 , 1 43 3 ( 2d

Ci r. 19 95 ). Insofar as plaintif

fs argue that the district court failed specif ically to address Lolita Br on zi ni ’s FMLAcla im , we con cl ud e th at anyove rs ig ht

was harm le ss . T he di stri ct co urt referenced the factual predicate of the underlying FMLA claim twice in its order and, properly reviewing Lolita Bronzini’s claims under the Mc Donnell Douglas burden-shifting fram ework, concluded there was no evide nc e to support a showing of pretext. Upon independent review of the record, we likewise conclude that the evidenc e is insuff icient to
su pp ort an in f

er en ce tha t de f

en dant ’s n on -d is cr im in at ory r ea so ns f or it s a ct io ns we re inf

ac t inre ta li at io n f

or Lo li taBr on zi ni ’s taki ng FML A- pr ot ec te d l eave . S ee Un it ed States v. Yo us e f , 3 2 7 F

. 3 d5 6 , 1 5 6 ( 2 dC i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( o b s e rv i n g th a tth i s c o u rti s “ f r e e t o a f f irman appealed decision on any ground which fin ds s up port in the record” (interna l quotation
m arks om itte d) ). We have consi de re d p la in ti f f s’ re m ai ni ng ar gum en ts onap pe al an d c on cl ud e tha t they are wi th out m er it

. F or the r ea so ns s ta te d ab ov e, the j ud gm en t of the d is tr ic t co urt is AFFIRMED. FOR THE COURT: CA TH ER IN E O ’HAGAN WOL FE , C le rk of Co urt