Kwai Wing Wong v. City of New York

Second Circuit

Kwai Wing Wong v. City of New York

38 F. App'x 88

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 2002

DocketDocket No. 01-9223

StatusPublished

This text of 38 F. App'x 88 (Kwai Wing Wong v. City of New York) 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

Kwai Wing Wong v. City of New York, 38 F. App'x 88 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Kwai Wing Wong, pro se, appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern Dis[89]*89trict of New York (Daniels, J.) granting summary judgment for the defendants, in Wong’s Title VII employment discrimination action. By order dated September 25, 2001, Judge Daniels adopted the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Eaton, dated October 4, 2000.

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal, and we affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Daniels’ Order dated September 25, 2001, and Magistrate Judge Eaton’s Report and Recommendation dated October 4, 2000. Even if Wong established a prima facie ease of discrimination, the defendants articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory motive for Wong’s termination: his limited proficiency with English and his inadequate knowledge of city government. See de la Cruz v. New York City Human Res. Admin. DSS, 82 F.3d 16, 22 (2d Cir.1996) (“[A]ppellees have proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory motive for the transfer, de la Cruz’s difficulties with English.”). Wong has faded to adduce evidence capable of supporting a reasonable finding that the defendant’s action was motivated by discrimination. See Fisher v. Vassar, 114 F.3d 1332, 1337 (2d Cir.1997) (in banc), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075, 118 S.Ct. 851, 139 L.Ed.2d 752 (1998).

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Kwai Wing Wong, pro se, appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern Dis[89]*89trict of New York (Daniels, J.) granting summary judgment for the defendants, in Wong’s Title VII employment discrimination action. By order dated September 25, 2001, Judge Daniels adopted the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Eaton, dated October 4, 2000.

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal, and we affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Daniels’ Order dated September 25, 2001, and Magistrate Judge Eaton’s Report and Recommendation dated October 4, 2000. Even if Wong established a prima facie ease of discrimination, the defendants articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory motive for Wong’s termination: his limited proficiency with English and his inadequate knowledge of city government. See de la Cruz v. New York City Human Res. Admin. DSS, 82 F.3d 16, 22 (2d Cir.1996) (“[A]ppellees have proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory motive for the transfer, de la Cruz’s difficulties with English.”). Wong has faded to adduce evidence capable of supporting a reasonable finding that the defendant’s action was motivated by discrimination. See Fisher v. Vassar, 114 F.3d 1332, 1337 (2d Cir.1997) (in banc), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075, 118 S.Ct. 851, 139 L.Ed.2d 752 (1998).

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F. App'x 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kwai-wing-wong-v-city-of-new-york-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack