Hargett v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Second Circuit

Hargett v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

381 F. App'x 12

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 2010

Docket09-4044-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 381 F. App'x 12 (Hargett v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hargett v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 381 F. App'x 12 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se plaintiff David T. Hargett appeals from an award of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the New York City Transit Authority, Stanley Grill, David Ross, and May McIntosh (collectively, the “NYCTA defendants”), on his wrongful termination and retaliation claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; and New York state law. We review a summary judgment award de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Havey v. Homebound Mortgage, Inc., 547 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir.2008). While we will not uphold an award of summary judgment in favor of defendants if the evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find for Hargett, he must point to more than a “scintilla” of supporting evidence to defeat summary judgment. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In applying these principles to this appeal, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision.

Upon independent review of the record, we conclude for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion that the NYCTA defendants were entitled to summary judgment. See Hargett v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 640 F.Supp.2d 450 (S.D.N.Y.2009). We have considered Hargett’s remaining arguments on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the August 5, 2009 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se plaintiff David T. Hargett appeals from an award of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the New York City Transit Authority, Stanley Grill, David Ross, and May McIntosh (collectively, the “NYCTA defendants”), on his wrongful termination and retaliation claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; and New York state law. We review a summary judgment award de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Havey v. Homebound Mortgage, Inc., 547 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir.2008). While we will not uphold an award of summary judgment in favor of defendants if the evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find for Hargett, he must point to more than a “scintilla” of supporting evidence to defeat summary judgment. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In applying these principles to this appeal, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision.

Upon independent review of the record, we conclude for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion that the NYCTA defendants were entitled to summary judgment. See Hargett v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 640 F.Supp.2d 450 (S.D.N.Y.2009). We have considered Hargett’s remaining arguments on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the August 5, 2009 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 F. App'x 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hargett-v-metropolitan-transportation-authority-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack