461 F. App'x 59
2d Cir.2012Background
- Hyek, pro se, sues Field Support Services, Inc. in the Second Circuit asserting Title VII discrimination and NYSHRL claims.
- District court granted summary judgment to Field, dismissing Hyek's discrimination and harassment claims.
- Hyek appeals the district court’s summary judgment ruling; the court reviews de novo for summary judgment issues.
- Title VII prima facie discrimination requires: protected class, qualification, adverse action, and evidence of discriminatory intent; NYSHRL analysis mirrors Title VII.
- Court independently reviews the record and agrees with the district court’s reasons; claims are resolved on the same grounds.
- Court declines to consider equal protection, due process, Seventh Amendment, and retaliation claims raised for the first time on appeal; affirmance follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case under Title VII/NYSHRL | Hyek asserts a prima facie case of discrimination based on gender. | Field contends no evidence of discriminatory intent and lacking adverse action in context. | No genuine issue; district court proper to grant summary judgment. |
| Application of NYSHRL standards to Title VII claims | NYSHRL claims analyzed identically to Title VII claims. | Field opposes alternative analysis; relies on existing Title VII framework. | NYSHRL standards analyzed identically; district court affirmed. |
| Consideration of new appellate claims (equal protection, due process, Seventh Amendment, retaliation) | Hyek raises additional constitutional and retaliation theories on appeal. | Appellate review should not entertain new theories not raised below. | Court declines to consider new appellate theories; affirms on pleaded claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary judgment de novo review standard)
- Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (discrimination prima facie framework; inferences inferences)
- Stuart v. American Cyanamid Co., 158 F.3d 622 (2d Cir. 1998) (genuine dispute of material fact requires reasonable jury verdict)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine dispute of material fact)
- United States v. Lauersen, 648 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2011) (not addressing new arguments raised on appeal)
- Smith v. Xerox Corp., 196 F.3d 358 (2d Cir. 1999) (NYSHRL analysis aligned with Title VII framework)