Whethers v. Nassau Health Care Corporation
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Romero v. St. Vincent's Services, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2022)
- Perard v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center (District Court, E.D. New York 2020)
- Delorme v. New York Automotive & Diesel Institute (District Court, E.D. New York 2020)
- Edo v. Attika Pizzaria Astoria Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2019)
- Chang v. New York City Board of Education (District Court, E.D. New York 2019)
- Aiken v. MTA New York City Transit (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Julien v. Venditty (District Court, E.D. New York 2020)
- Toussaint v. NY Dialysis Services, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2017)
- Dickens v. Hudson Sheraton Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2016)
- World of Boxing LLC v. King (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
- Tjeknavorian v. Mardirossian (District Court, S.D. New York 2014)
- Wright v. Jewish Child Care Ass'n (District Court, S.D. New York 2014)
- Zaretsky v. William Goldberg Diamond Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2014)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Doreen Whethers brought an action against her former employer Nassau Health Care Corporation (“NHCC”), and several NHCC employees, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983; the First and Fourteenth Amendments; and the New York State Human Rights Law *35 (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296 et seq. Whethers alleged discrimination on the basis of her race (African-American), as well as retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Whethers had not stated a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and had not demonstrated a violation of her constitutional rights. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 800 (2d Cir. 2003). We are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmovant; the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts revealed in materials such as affidavits, exhibits, interrogatory answers, and depositions must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Assoc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate “[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
Upon such review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants for the reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum and order.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.