MSSSV Obtains Summary Judgment in Federal Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

Agostinello v. Great Neck Union Free School District, E.D.N.Y. Docket No. 05-CIV-5838: In February of 2009, Magistrate Judge William D. Wall of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted MSSSV’s summary judgment motion on behalf of the defendant Great Neck School District (the “District”), thereby dismissing plaintiff’s claims under both federal and state law. A copy of the Court’s 36 page decision may be found by clicking here.

Plaintiff, a former janitor for the District, alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and New York State Executive Law § 296. Essentially, plaintiff argued that the District: 1) did not consider him for the position of Assistant Head Custodian; 2) permitted a hostile work environment to exist; and 3) denied his request for a reasonable accommodation relating to an alleged back injury.

In granting the District’s motion for summary judgment, the Court found that the District presented sufficient evidence that the failure to promote was based on plaintiff’s improper behavior, poor judgment, and deficient interpersonal relationships. Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to rebut the District’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons in this regard and, therefore, could not support his racial/national origin discrimination claims.

Additionally, the Court rejected plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, finding that his resignation from the District was voluntary and not a constructive discharge. Additionally, plaintiff could not establish a retaliation claim as there was an insufficient temporal proximity between the purported protected activities and the alleged retaliatory discharge.

With regard to the disability discrimination claims, the Court agreed that the plaintiff could not show an impairment that substanitally limited a major life activity as required by the ADA, or that the District regarded plaintiff as disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Accordingly, the disability discrimination claims failed as a matter of law.