Wilbern v. Xerox Corp.

Second Circuit

Wilbern v. Xerox Corp.

126 F. App'x 526

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 2005

DocketNo. 03-7069

StatusPublished

This text of 126 F. App'x 526 (Wilbern v. Xerox Corp.) 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

Wilbern v. Xerox Corp., 126 F. App'x 526 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

AFTER ARGUMENT AND UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Wilbern, pro se, appeals from a judgment entered December 13, 2002 by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Michael A. Telesca, Judge) granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and dismissing the plaintiffs claims of employment discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296. We assume familiarity with the facts, procedural context, and the issues on appeal.

For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, the judgment is AFFIRMED, and the appellant’s motion, filed October 12, 2004, for “Reversal of the District Court’s order in its entirety” is DENIED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

AFTER ARGUMENT AND UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Wilbern, pro se, appeals from a judgment entered December 13, 2002 by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Michael A. Telesca, Judge) granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and dismissing the plaintiffs claims of employment discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296. We assume familiarity with the facts, procedural context, and the issues on appeal.

For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, the judgment is AFFIRMED, and the appellant’s motion, filed October 12, 2004, for “Reversal of the District Court’s order in its entirety” is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 F. App'x 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilbern-v-xerox-corp-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack