Whethers v. Nassau Health Care Corporation

Second Circuit

Whethers v. Nassau Health Care Corporation

578 F. App'x 34

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 18, 2014

Docket13-2991

StatusUnpublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 578 F. App'x 34 (Whethers v. Nassau Health Care Corporation) 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

Whethers v. Nassau Health Care Corporation, 578 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Doreen Whethers brought an action against her former employer Nassau Health Care Corporation (“NHCC”), and several NHCC employees, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983; the First and Fourteenth Amendments; and the New York State Human Rights Law *35 (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296 et seq. Whethers alleged discrimination on the basis of her race (African-American), as well as retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Whethers had not stated a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and had not demonstrated a violation of her constitutional rights. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 800 (2d Cir.2003). We are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmovant; the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts revealed in materials such as affidavits, exhibits, interrogatory answers, and depositions must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Assoc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999). Summary judgment is appropriate “[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

Upon such review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum and order.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Doreen Whethers brought an action against her former employer Nassau Health Care Corporation (“NHCC”), and several NHCC employees, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983; the First and Fourteenth Amendments; and the New York State Human Rights Law *35 (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296 et seq. Whethers alleged discrimination on the basis of her race (African-American), as well as retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Whethers had not stated a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and had not demonstrated a violation of her constitutional rights. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 800 (2d Cir.2003). We are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmovant; the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts revealed in materials such as affidavits, exhibits, interrogatory answers, and depositions must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Assoc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir.1999). Summary judgment is appropriate “[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

Upon such review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum and order.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 F. App'x 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whethers-v-nassau-health-care-corporation-ca2-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack