The opinion of the court was delivered by: VINCENT L. BRODERICK
VINCENT L. BRODERICK, U.S.D.J.
This case is an employment discrimination suit brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e et seq. arising out of termination of the plaintiff Lorenzo Chambers ("Chambers") as an employee of the defendant TRM Copy Centers Corporation ("TRM"). Subject matter jurisdiction is premised upon 28 USC 1331 and 1343. TRM has moved for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The motion is granted.
Chambers, a dark-skinned employee of Jamaican origin, asserts that he worked satisfactorily for TRM until dismissed without any articulated reason. Chambers' supervisor was Black.
TRM asserts as grounds for its motion that there were two sets of nondiscriminatory bases to support Chambers' dismissal:
(a) Chambers was the subject of complaints and negative observations by co-workers and customers, and
(b) Chambers violated a TRM rule against moonlighting by retaining a prior job after coming to work for the employer and failed to disclose his intention to keep his other job when hired; TRM discovered the alleged rule infraction after Chambers was terminated on other grounds.
Chambers was hired in July 1989. He never was given any written negative job evaluation or written warning that his work needed improvement until April 13, 1990, seven (7) days before he was dismissed without explanation.
In addition to plaintiff being a member of a group against which discrimination may be suspected ("protected class"), being qualified for the position, and not being hired (or retained), the circumstances must permit an inference of unlawful discrimination in order for a triable claim to be presented under any of the antidiscrimination statutes. Taggart v. Time, Inc, 924 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir 1991); Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989 (2d Cir), cert. denied 474 U.S. 829, 88 L. Ed. 2d 74, 106 S. Ct. 91 (1985); Stanojev v. Ebasco Services, 643 F.2d 914, 919 (2d Cir 1981).
Unless a party having the burden of proof submits evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment dismissing the claim is appropriate. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). If a claim is "implausible," the claimant "must come forward with more persuasive evidence . . . than would otherwise be necessary." Matsushita ...