Eyuboglu v. Gravity Media, LLC, 1:16-cv-06362

Background

Plaintiff Deniz Eyuboglu, a Muslim woman of Turkish origin, was hired by Gravity Media in 2011 and rose to Senior Art Director before being terminated in December 2015.
During employment she alleges derogatory comments (e.g., “live bomb,” “eyes looked weird,” “Turkish dominant”) and that her name was removed from some client pitches and replaced by others.
On November 12, 2015, Plaintiff called the EEOC from her office phone to initiate a discrimination complaint; Plaintiff contends Gravity learned of the call via office security recordings.
At a December 10, 2015 review, Plaintiff acknowledged (in deposition) telling reviewer Rod Alanis she was looking for another job and had lost trust in the company; Alanis recommended termination to HR.
Lillian Laskin (HR) terminated Plaintiff on December 22, 2015, citing Plaintiff’s statements about looking for a job and loss of trust; Gravity asserts it had no knowledge of the EEOC call before the termination.
Court considered Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYC Human Rights Law claims; granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all federal and state claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over City Law claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discrimination (national origin/religion) — prima facie & pretext	Eyuboglu points to derogatory comments, removal of her name from pitches, and “Turkish dominant” remark as evidence of discriminatory motive and pretext for termination	Gravity contends it terminated Eyuboglu for concededly non-discriminatory reasons: she told a reviewer she was looking for a new job and had lost trust in the company	Court assumed prima facie case but found defendant offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and Plaintiff failed to show those reasons were pretextual; summary judgment for Gravity
Retaliation for EEOC complaint — employer knowledge	Eyuboglu argues Gravity learned of her EEOC call via security-camera audio and then fired her in retaliation	Gravity denies any knowledge of the EEOC call before termination and proffers affidavits denying audio capability or review of recordings	Court held Plaintiff’s theory speculative and insufficient to show employer knowledge or causal link; summary judgment for Gravity
Use of contradictory affidavit to create issue of fact	Eyuboglu submitted an affidavit denying statements she admitted in deposition about losing trust/looking for another job	Gravity argues deposition admissions control and affidavit cannot create a sham issue	Court applied Brown v. Henderson principle and declined to credit the affidavit where it contradicted prior deposition testimony
Supplemental jurisdiction over NYC Human Rights Law claims	Plaintiff sought to pursue City Law claims after federal/state claims	Gravity sought dismissal of federal/state claims on summary judgment	Court dismissed federal/state claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over City Law claims; those claims dismissed without prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Brown v. Henderson, 257 F.3d 246 (2d Cir.) (affidavit that contradicts prior deposition cannot create genuine issue)
Abdu‑Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456 (2d Cir.) (prima facie burden is de minimis)
Bickerstaff v. Vassar College, 196 F.3d 435 (2d Cir.) (plaintiff must present sufficient evidence for a rational factfinder to infer intentional discrimination)
Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir.) (conclusory allegations insufficient to create genuine issue)
Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.) (elements of retaliation claim)