also seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff's Section 1981 claim. Id.
I. Summary Judgment Standard
A court may grant summary judgment only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The court's task is not to "weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). No genuine issue exists "if, based on all the pleadings, affidavits and other papers on file, and after drawing all inferences and resolving all ambiguities in favor of the non-movant, it appears that the evidence supporting the non-movant's case is so scant that a rational jury could not find in its favor." Chertkova v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 81, 86 (2d Cir. 1996); Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1994).
To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538, 106 S. Ct. 1348 (1986). Rather, the opposing party must offer "concrete evidence from which a reasonable juror could return a verdict in [its] favor." Dister v. Continental Group, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108, 1114 (2d Cir. 1988). Motions for summary judgment cannot be "defeated merely . . . on the basis of conjecture or surmise." Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Found., 51 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995).
The general principles of summary judgment apply with equal force to employment discrimination claims. See McLee v. Chrysler Corp., 38 F.3d 67, 68 (2d Cir. 1994). But, because intent is often disputed in such cases, courts treat summary judgment motions in discrimination actions with special caution. Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219, 1224 (2d Cir. 1994). Nonetheless, summary judgment may be appropriate for discrimination claims when the plaintiff does nothing more than present "conclusory allegations." Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989, 998 (2d Cir. 1985); see, e.g., Sciarrino v. Municipal Credit Union, 894 F. Supp. 102, 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1995).
II. Title VII
A. Applicable Legal Standards
Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against in his employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, which provides, in pertinent part: "it shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or to otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges" on the basis of his race. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
The Supreme Court, in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973), established the framework for the "allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof in discriminatory-treatment claims." St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506, 125 L. Ed. 2d 407, 113 S. Ct. 2742 (1993). Under the Court's three-step Title VII analysis, a plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-04. A plaintiff makes out a prima facie case by showing: (1) membership in a protected class; (2) qualification for the position; (3) an adverse employment decision; and (4) under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Hargett v. National Westminster Bank, USA, 78 F.3d 836, 838 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 136 L. Ed. 2d 41, 117 S. Ct. 84 (1996). Plaintiff's burden at this initial stage is "minimal." Saint Mary's, 509 U.S. at 506. Establishment of the prima facie case "in effect creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee." Id.
Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-04. Defendant "need only produce admissible evidence which would allow the trier of fact rationally to conclude that the employment decision was not motivated by discriminatory animus." Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-55, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207, 101 S. Ct. 1089 (1981). If the defendant carries this burden of production, "the presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted" and "drops" from the case. St. Mary's, 509 U.S. at 510-11.
At the final stage, plaintiff must satisfy its burden of persuasion on the ultimate question: whether the defendant intentionally discriminated against plaintiff on an unlawful basis. Id. at 507-08. In the summary judgment context, this requires a plaintiff to establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether defendant's articulated reason for its decision is pretextual. See Chertkova, 92 F.3d at 92. The plaintiff must do so by "producing not simply some evidence, but sufficient evidence to support a rational finding that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons proffered by the employer were false, and that more likely than not [discrimination] was the real reason." Van Zant v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 80 F.3d 708, 714 (2d Cir. 1996); Agugliaro v. Brooks Brothers, Inc., 927 F. Supp. 741, 746 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
B. GSH's Motion for Summary Judgment
1. Failure to Promote Claim
The three-step burden shifting analysis applies to Plaintiff's discriminatory promotion claim. To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory denial of a promotion, Plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the promotion; (3) his promotion was delayed; and (4) the delay in promotion occurred in circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. See Rosen v. Thornburgh, 928 F.2d 528, 532 (2d Cir. 1991).
GSH argues that Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework on the grounds that he has not shown that the denial of the "promotions" occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of race discrimination. See Def.'s Mem. at 7.
The Court agrees. Five of the seven individuals identified by Plaintiff as having received higher-paying assignments were black -- members of Plaintiff's protected class. As such, Plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of race discrimination because he cannot show that the adverse employment action taken against him occurred in circumstances giving rise to an inference of race discrimination.
See Samuels v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Servs., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6739, 1997 WL 253209, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (finding that plaintiff had failed to make out prima facie case of race discrimination in discriminatory promotion action because two of four promotions of which she complained involved promotions of members of plaintiff's protected class).
Even if a prima facie case had been established, the Court finds that GSH has offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. GSH has presented evidence of its substitution policy. The Court finds that the policy is not discriminatory on its face, nor has it been applied to Plaintiff in a discriminatory manner. In the dietary department, a vacancy is filled with the most senior employee present at the time the opening arises. Once an employee moves up to an absent cook's position, that employee does not step down later in the day when a more senior employee arrives to work. Documentary evidence submitted by GSH supports the application of this policy: on the two occasions a less-senior, non-black employee (Jorge Ferrara) was assigned to higher-paying positions ahead of Plaintiff, the vacancy arose (and was filled) before Plaintiff arrived to work.
No evidence in the record suggests that GSH's reasons were a pretext for race discrimination. Accordingly; summary judgment is proper on this claim. See Meiri, 759 F.2d at 994.
2. Harassment/Hostile Work Environment Claim
The Second Circuit has made clear that "a working environment overrun by racial antagonism constitutes a Title VII violation." Snell v. Suffolk County, 782 F.2d 1094, 1102 (2d Cir. 1986). Liability based on a hostile work environment exists when "the [plaintiff's] workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment." Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 126 L. Ed. 2d 295, 114 S. Ct. 367 (1993). To establish this claim, however, plaintiff "must prove more than a few isolated incidents of [discriminatory] enmity." Snell, 782 F.2d at 1103. "Casual comments, or accidental or sporadic conversation" will not trigger Title VII relief. Id.
Aside from conclusory allegations of a "conspiracy" to fabricate disciplinary charges against him, overlook the misdeeds of unnamed "others," and "treat [him] with no respect," Plaintiff offers no evidence to corroborate his allegations of harassment. In fact, Plaintiff has admitted that he has never heard his supervisors at GSH utter racial comments which could give rise to an abusive work environment. See Tr. at 75. Nor does Plaintiff dispute the reasons given by GSH for his disciplinary charges. Plaintiff instead acknowledges that he "was out of work" on the days pertaining to his discipline for excessive use of sick time. Additionally, nothing in the record suggests that GSH treated non-blacks differently than Plaintiff.
Plaintiff, in essence, rests his claim exclusively on the conclusory assertion that race explains the disciplinary actions taken against him. This is simply not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. See Smith v. American Express Co., 853 F.2d 151, 154-55 (2d Cir. 1988) (granting summary judgment where plaintiff's allegations were "conclusory and unsupported by evidence of any weight"); Meiri, 759 F.2d at 998 (same); Lamb v. Citibank, N.A., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12903, 1994 WL 497275, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (same). Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of GSH on this claim.
III. Section 1981
As the Court previously held, Plaintiff's Section 1981 claim is not cognizable. See Op. and Order, dated October 7, 1993, at 2 n.2. In Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 185, 105 L. Ed. 2d 132, 109 S. Ct. 2363 (1989), the Supreme Court held that Section 1981 did not apply to the discriminatory conduct of an employer after the establishment of the employment relationship. Although Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 overruled Patterson, the Supreme Court has held that Section 101 does not apply retroactively. Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 311, 128 L. Ed. 2d 274, 114 S. Ct. 1510 (1994). Because the discriminatory acts alleged in this case occurred before Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1991, his claims are not cognizable under Section 1981.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby grants GSH's motion for summary judgment and dismisses the complaint in its entirety.
It is So Ordered.
Dated: August 18, 1997
New York, New York
Mary Johnson Lowe
United States District Judge