Case Name: David OWENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-09
Citations: 612 F. App'x 51
Docket Number: No. 14-2730
Parties: David OWENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., and DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 612
Pages: 51–52

Head Matter:
David OWENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-2730.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 9, 2015.
Melvin Bressler, Pittsford, NY, for Appellant.
Cara M. Briggs (Edwin Lopez-Soto, on the brief), Rochester, NY, for Appellee.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., and DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant David Owens appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, /.), granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellee Rochester City School District. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's June 25, 2014 order.
Where, as here, "a plaintiff seeks to prevent summary judgment on the strength of a discrepancy in qualifications ignored by an employer, that discrepancy must bear the entire burden of allowing a reasonable trier of fact to not only conclude the employer's explanation was pre-textual, but that the pretext served to mask unlawful discrimination." Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. Of Educ., 243 F.3d 93, 103 (2d Cir.2001).
It is undisputed that there is no direct evidence of discrimination in the summary judgment record. And it is undisputed that Owens had "attendance issues" in his personnel file, unlike Peter Torchia, who ultimately received the promotion. Ow-' ens's claim to be more qualified than Torc-hia is dubious, given Lániak's virtually un-rebutted testimony that Torchia "was and . still is the most qualified in the district" for the job. . JA 77. But in any event, that purported discrepancy in qualifications could not, standing alone, support an inference of racial discrimination on this record.
For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Owens's other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.