14‐1454 Hahn v. Bank of America N.A.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of June, two thousand fifteen.

PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________

LORI HAHN,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

‐v.‐ No. 14‐1454

BANK OF AMERICA N.A.,

Defendant‐Appellee,

MARIA LOCCISANO,

Defendant.

1 ____________________________________________

For Plaintiff‐Appellant: Eric M. Baum, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, New York, NY.

For Defendant‐Appellee: Alice A. Kokodis, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, Boston, MA.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Freeman, M.J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff Lori Hahn brought suit against her former employer, Bank of

America (“BOA” or the “Bank”), under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law

(“NYSHRL”),

, et seq., claiming the Bank discriminated

against her on the basis of her national origin, created a hostile work

environment, and retaliated against her for her complaints to the Bank’s human

resources department. Following discovery, BOA moved for summary judgment

and Hahn voluntarily dismissed her discrimination claim. In its March 31, 2014,

Memorandum and Opinion, the magistrate judge granted summary judgment

for BOA on Hahn’s retaliation and hostile work environment claims. Hahn

2 appeals that decision. We affirm for reasons stated by the magistrate judge in

her Memorandum and Opinion.

We have considered all of Hahn’s arguments and find them to be without

merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3