Role v. Alpha Displays Co.

Second Circuit

Role v. Alpha Displays Co.

218 F. App'x 80

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 2007

DocketNo. 06-1587-cv

StatusPublished

This text of 218 F. App'x 80 (Role v. Alpha Displays Co.) 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

Role v. Alpha Displays Co., 218 F. App'x 80 (2d Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[81]*81SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Eloy Role pro se appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against his Complaint, which alleged discrimination on the basis of age, national origin, and race. The Complaint was brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights 25 Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2) — 1985(3), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 et seq., and New York’s hate crimes statute, N.Y. Penal Law § 485.00. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Salovaara, 326 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir.2003).

We affirm for substantially the reasons given by the district court in its opinion. We have carefully considered all of Role’s arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

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

[81]*81SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Eloy Role pro se appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against his Complaint, which alleged discrimination on the basis of age, national origin, and race. The Complaint was brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights 25 Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2) — 1985(3), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 et seq., and New York’s hate crimes statute, N.Y. Penal Law § 485.00. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Salovaara, 326 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir.2003).

We affirm for substantially the reasons given by the district court in its opinion. We have carefully considered all of Role’s arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F. App'x 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/role-v-alpha-displays-co-ca2-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack