Lust v. Nederlandse Programma Stichting, 102412 FED2, 11-2972-cv
|Party Name:||WILLEM LUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEDERLANDSE PROGRAMMA STICHTING, CAREL KUYL, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||FOR APPELLANT: Douglas H. Wigdor (David K. Reid, Lawrence M. Pearson, on the brief), Thompson Wigdor LLP, New York, New York. FOR APPELLEE: Howard J. Rubin (Gregg A. Gilman, Jason E. Pruzansky, on the brief), Davis & Gilbert, LLP, New York, New York.|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||October 24, 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 24th day of October, two thousand twelve.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (William H. Pauley III, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant Willem Lust ("Lust") filed suit against his employer, Nederlandse Programma Stichting ("NPS"), and supervisor, Carel Kuyl ("Kuyl"), alleging employment discrimination, retaliation, failure to engage in the accommodation process, and various violations of the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The district court (William H. Pauley III, Judge) granted defendants-appellees' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. On appeal, Lust argues that the district court failed to give proper deference to his choice of forum and improperly balanced the private and public interest factors. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP