Paul DESIR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (BOCES) NASSAU COUNTY, James D. Mapes, Robert Lombardi, Sandra Tedesco, John Gangemi, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-1663-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 15, 2012.
478 F. App‘x 66
PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges, J. GARVAN MURTHA, District Judge.*
We review the district court‘s denial of Plaintiff-Appellant‘s request for prejudgment interest for abuse of discretion. See Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. EI Constructors, Inc., 239 Conn. 708, 734, 687 A.2d 506 (1997). We do not reach the question on which the court based its decision, namely, whether DaimlerChrysler Insurance sufficiently raised the issue of prejudgment interest to permit consideration of whether Pambianchi wrongfully withheld money due to DaimlerChrysler Insurance Company. Instead, we find that the district court‘s determination that equitable considerations counseled against awarding prejudgment interest was not an abuse of discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
Allen E. Wolin, Wolin & Wolin, Jericho, NY, for Appellant.
Samantha Velez, (Lewis R. Silverman, on the brief), Rutherford & Christie, LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee.
* Judge J. Garvan Murtha, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Desir appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Mauskopf, J.), granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Plaintiff‘s race discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
To withstand a summary judgment motion on a Title VII discrimination claim, the plaintiff must first show that: “(1) [ ]he is a member of a protected class; (2) []he is qualified for [his] position; (3) []he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination.” Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 42 (2d Cir. 2000). This burden is “minimal.” Collins v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 305 F.3d 113, 118 (2d Cir.2002). If the plaintiff satisfies his minimal burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to “articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action.” Norville v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 196 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir.1999). If the defendant does so, then the plaintiff must prove “that the articulated justification is in fact a pretext for discrimination.” Id. The tests for a discrimination claim under New York law and
We review de novo a district court‘s grant of summary judgment, with the view that “[s]ummary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.