Case Name: Doreen WHETHERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Stephanie Hayle, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NASSAU HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-18
Citations: 578 F. App'x 34
Docket Number: No. 13-2991
Parties: Doreen WHETHERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Stephanie Hayle, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NASSAU HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges, LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 578
Pages: 34–35

Head Matter:
Doreen WHETHERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Stephanie Hayle, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NASSAU HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-2991.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 18, 2014.
Doreen Whethers, Freeport, N.Y., pro se, Plaintiff-Appellant.
Brian J. Clark, Nicholas Marco Reiter, Venable LLP, New York, N.Y., for Defendants-Appellees.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges, LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Doreen Whethers brought an action against her former employer Nassau Health Care Corporation ("NHCC"), and several NHCC employees, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1983; the First and Fourteenth Amendments; and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 et seq. Whethers alleged discrimination on the basis of her race (African-American), as well as retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Whethers had not stated a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and had not demonstrated a violation of her constitutional rights. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 800 (2d Cir.2003). We are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmovant; the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts revealed in materials such as affidavits, exhibits, interrogatory answers, and depositions must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Assoc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999). Summary judgment is appropriate "[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
Upon such review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum and order.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.