Pl. Aff. ¶ 31, Ex. G. Plaintiff never had this medical
Plaintiff contends that these requests for medical
examinations were retaliatory acts against her because of her
filing of her EEOC complaint of disability
D. Unfriendly Environment
Plaintiff contends that her "job conditions were hell" after
she filed her EEOC charge. Pl. Aff. ¶ 33. She was "constantly in
fear [she] would be disciplined,  was treated shabbily,  was
threatened with medical examinations, and generally made
miserable." Id. She felt "extremely upset, anxious and
unwell." Id. Plaintiff further contends that Chief Britney
ignored her and was not as friendly to her as he was before she
filed her charges.
IV. This Action
On February 26, 2001, plaintiff filed this action, alleging
retaliation for the filing of an EEOC charge in violation of the
ADA. On October 9, 2001, defendant filed its motion for summary
I. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment will be granted when "there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c);
see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 585-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
Accordingly, 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, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
Summary judgment is inappropriate if, resolving all ambiguities
and drawing all inferences against the moving party, there
exists a dispute about a material fact "such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at
248-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see Bay v. Times Mirror Magazines,
Inc., 936 F.2d 112, 116 (2d Cir. 1991).
To defeat a motion for summary judgment, however, the
nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is
some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita,
475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citation omitted). The
nonmoving party "must present `concrete particulars' and cannot
succeed with purely conclusory allegations." Fitch v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 675 F. Supp. 133, 136 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)
(citation omitted). There is no issues for trial unless there
exists sufficient evidence in the record favoring the party
opposing summary judgment to support a jury verdict in that
party's favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 24950, 106 S.Ct. 2505. As
the Court held in Anderson, "if the evidence is merely
colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment
may be granted." Id. (citations omitted).
II. Plaintiff's ADA Retaliation Claim
A. Applicable Law
The ADA prohibits, inter alia, retaliation against any
individual who has asserted rights under the ADA:
No person shall discriminate against any individual
because such individual . . . made a charge,
testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in
investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this
42 U.S.C. § 12203(a).