Andreos v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 051612 FED2, 11-5481-cv
|Party Name:||ANTONIO ANDREOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||FOR APPELLANT: ANTONIO ANDREOS, pro se, Edgewater, NJ. FOR APPELLEE: CHRISTOPHER H. MILLS (David J. Treibman, on the brief), Fisher & Phillips LLP, Murray Hill, NJ.|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, J. GARVAN MURTHA, District Judge|
|Case Date:||May 16, 2012|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of May, two thousand twelve.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Andreos, pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J.), granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. ("Kraft"), in his employment discrimination action brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.1
Andreos's principal contention on appeal is that the district court erred in granting Kraft's summary judgment motion on his race discrimination claim. We review orders granting summary judgment de novo. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is appropriate upon a showing "that there is no genuine...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP