Mussallihattillah v. McGinnis, 684 F. App'x 43

Plaintiff Dawud Mussallihattillah, a former DOCS imam, sued New York State DOCS, its superintendent, and an assistant deputy superintendent under Title VII alleging race- and religion-based wrongful termination after a three-day bench trial.
The district court granted a Rule 52(c) judgment for defendants after they moved under Rule 50(a) and the court converted the motion to a judgment on partial findings; plaintiff appeals pro se.
Plaintiff sought to call a Muslim chaplain to testify about his integrity, reputation among imams, and hardships from firing; the district court excluded that testimony as irrelevant or barred character evidence.
Plaintiff also challenges limits on redirect examination and the district court’s sua sponte conversion of defendants’ directed verdict motion to a Rule 52(c) motion, claiming due process violations.
The district court found plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, concluding his job performance was unsatisfactory and that circumstances did not give rise to an inference of discrimination; plaintiff had a history of disciplinary actions including a security-related infraction leading to termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of character witness testimony	Testimony would show integrity, reputation, and hardships, relevant to credibility and damages	Testimony irrelevant to employer's motive and barred as character evidence under Rules 401/404	Evidence exclusion not an abuse of discretion; testimony irrelevant to motive and improperly offered as character evidence
Limits on redirect examination	Restrictions deprived plaintiff of meaningful opportunity to be heard	Plaintiff had redirect, declined further, and received extended summation after Rule 50 motion	No due process violation; plaintiff was fully heard and given summation equivalent
Conversion of Rule 50(a) to Rule 52(c)	Conversion denied procedural rights and chance to present defendants as witnesses	Conversion appropriate when plaintiff had been fully heard; Rule 52(c) proper	Conversion did not deny meaningful opportunity; no reversible error
Failure to prove prima facie discrimination under McDonnell Douglas	Long tenure and two alleged disparate-treatment incidents support inference of discrimination	Plaintiff had multiple sustained disciplinary actions, attendance issues, and the termination was for insubordination to a security order; comparators not similarly situated	District court properly found plaintiff failed to show satisfactory performance and no inference of discrimination; Title VII claims against individuals also fail as a matter of law

Keepers, Inc. v. City of Milford, 807 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing district court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
Florez v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 829 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2016) (relevance standard for evidence of motive)
Crawford v. Tribeca Lending Corp., 815 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2016) (limitations on character evidence)
MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 157 F.3d 956 (2d Cir. 1998) (standard of review for Rule 52(c) findings of fact and law)
McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
Mario v. P&C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2002) (elements of a prima facie employment-discrimination case)
Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (individuals not liable under Title VII)
Thornley v. Penton Pub., Inc., 104 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 1997) (misconduct bears on satisfactory job performance)
Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (requirements for proper comparators to show disparate treatment)
24/7 Records, Inc. v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 429 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for forfeited claims on appeal; review only for manifest injustice or extraordinary need)