Court Opinion

ID: 9926293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 16:01:12.550561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:21.448246
License: Public Domain

22-857-cv (L)
Branch v. SUNY Downstate

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
                                 SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order
filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a
document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix 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 for the Second Circuit,
held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
City of New York, on the 24th day of January, two thousand twenty-four.

       PRESENT:       Steven J. Menashi,
                      Sarah A. L. Merriam,
                               Circuit Judges,
                      Stephen A. Vaden,
                               Judge. *
____________________________________________

ROMAIN R. BRANCH,

                Plaintiff-Appellant,

         v.                                                    No. 22-857-cv (L)
                                                               No. 23-170-cv (Con)
STATE         UNIVERSITY         OF       NEW       YORK
DOWNSTATE          MEDICAL         CENTER,       AYMAN
FANOUS, Individually and as Chair of the
Department of Psychiatry, State University of New

*
 Judge Stephen A. Vaden of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation.
York     Downstate         Medical    Center,   STATE
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK,

              Defendants-Appellees.

____________________________________________

For Plaintiff-Appellant:                        SANDRA D. PARKER, Law Office of
                                                Sandra D. Parker, New York, NY.

For Defendants-Appellees:                       ANDREA W. TRENTO, Assistant
                                                Solicitor   General    (Barbara    D.
                                                Underwood,      Solicitor     General,
                                                and   Judith   N.     Vale,   Deputy
                                                Solicitor General, on the brief), for
                                                Letitia James, Attorney General of
                                                the State of New York, New York,
                                                NY.

       Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Torres, J.).

       Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED that the orders of the district court of July 20, 2020, and March 31, 2022,
are AFFIRMED.

       Plaintiff-Appellant Romain R. Branch brought claims under Title VII, the
Civil Rights Act of 1866, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state-law claims under the
New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and the New York City Human
Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) against his employers, Defendants-Appellees State
University of New York Downstate Medical Center (“SUNY Downstate”); Ayman
Fanous, the Chair of the Psychiatry Department at SUNY Downstate; and the State
University of New York.

                                           2
      Branch alleged that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis
of his race and national origin in several ways, including by not renewing his
position as Clinical Assistant Professor and by removing him from the position of
Program Director. He further alleged that the defendants retaliated against him
for complaining to the Office of Diversity and Inclusion about the allegedly
discriminatory treatment he received. The district court (1) granted the
defendants’ motion to dismiss regarding the retaliation claim and then (2) granted
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the discrimination claims while
declining to reconsider its dismissal of the retaliation claim. Branch appeals the
judgment reflected in both orders.

      We have considered all of Branch’s arguments, which we conclude are
without merit. Substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its orders,
we affirm the judgment of the district court.

                                         FOR THE COURT:
                                         Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

                                           3