Lebron v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: February 26, 2025
• Docket: 24-833
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

24-833-cv Lebron v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 26th day of February, two thousand twenty-five.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE L. LEBRON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 24-833-cv

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, STATE OF CT,

Defendant-Appellee. ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR APPELLANT: JOSE L. LEBRON, pro se, Lebanon, NH

FOR APPELLEE: STEPHANIE A. WAINWRIGHT, Assistant Attorney General, for William Tong, Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District

of Connecticut (Victor A. Bolden, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff Jose Lebron, proceeding pro se, appeals from a March 11, 2024

judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

(Bolden, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of the Connecticut Department

of Social Services (the “Department”). Lebron, a Hispanic man, brought an

employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e-17, alleging that the Department discriminated against

him on the basis of his race and gender when it passed him over for a promotion

in favor of another employee. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as

necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

2 “We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Garcia

v. Hartford Police Dep’t, 706 F.3d 120, 126 (2d Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted).

We will affirm if, “resolv[ing] all ambiguities and draw[ing] all inferences against

the moving party,” we are satisfied that “there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact” and that “the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Id. at 126–27 (quotation marks omitted). We “liberally construe pleadings and

briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the

strongest arguments they suggest.” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d

154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). But “conclusory statements or

mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.”

Penn v. N.Y. Methodist Hosp., 884 F.3d 416, 423 (2d Cir. 2018) (quotation marks

omitted).

We analyze Title VII discrimination claims under the familiar three-step

burden-shifting framework established by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411

U.S. 792 (1973). First, the employee must establish a prima facie case of

discrimination; second, if he does, the employer must proffer a legitimate, non-

discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action (here, the failure to

promote Lebron); and third, if the employer does so, the employee can defeat

3 summary judgment only by pointing to record evidence that would permit a

rational finder of fact to infer that the employer’s proffered reason was a pretext

for discrimination. See Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223, 225 (2d Cir.

2014).

Even assuming that Lebron established a prima facie case of discrimination

under the Title VII burden-shifting framework, the District Court correctly

granted summary judgment. The Department proffered a legitimate, non-

discriminatory reason for selecting Nicole Godburn (who, like Lebron, was then

employed as a Principal Cost Analyst) for a Fiscal Administrative Manager

position for which Lebron also applied. Godburn had “experience with value-

based payment initiatives . . . that [Lebron] undisputably did not have.”

Appellee’s Br. 12. Indeed, the job posting for the Fiscal Administrative Manager

position specifically listed “[e]xpertise in health insurance rate setting and value-

based payment approaches” as a preferred qualification. Supp. App’x 34.

On appeal, Lebron argues that the District Court erred in granting

summary judgment because Godburn misrepresented her qualifications in her

application and two members of the hiring panel made various false statements

4 during and after the hiring process. 1 We are not persuaded. First, there is no

admissible record evidence to which we have been pointed that suggests the

relevant decisionmakers at the Department were aware of any inaccuracies in

Godburn’s application when they conducted the hiring process. To the contrary,

their unrebutted testimony was that they “only became aware of [her

misrepresentations] during the course of this litigation.” Supp. App’x 65, 96; see

also Supp. App’x 80. Second, Lebron’s argument that members of the hiring

panel made false statements about Godburn’s qualifications and the hiring

process is unsupported by any admissible record evidence that could create a

genuine dispute of material fact. See Brandon v. Royce, 102 F.4th 47, 54–55 (2d Cir.

2024). These arguments thus fail to rebut the Department’s non-discriminatory

explanation. Because Lebron failed to adduce any admissible evidence that

could permit a reasonable juror to conclude that “the employer’s stated reason

was pretext for discrimination,” Bart v. Golub Corp., 96 F.4th 566, 570 (2d Cir.

1 The Department’s brief addresses additional arguments that Lebron either raised before the District Court or raised for the first time on appeal. Pro se parties, however, are not excused from Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a), which “requires appellants in their briefs to provide the court with a clear statement of the issues on appeal.” Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 1998). We accordingly “will not[] decide issues that [Lebron] fails to raise in his . . . appellate brief.” Id. We likewise will not consider any arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Green v. Dep’t of Educ. of City of N.Y., 16 F.4th 1070, 1078 (2d Cir. 2021). 5 2024), we affirm the District Court’s dismissal of his Title VII claim.

We have considered Lebron’s remaining arguments and conclude that

they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District

Court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court