DiCola v. SwissRe Holding (North America), Inc., 908

Decision Date14 June 1993
Docket NumberNo. 908,D,908
Citation996 F.2d 30
Parties62 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 124, 61 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,326 Ronald DiCOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SWISSRE HOLDING (NORTH AMERICA), INC., a corporation authorized to do business under the laws of the State of New York, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 92-7940.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Gary A. Schultz, New York City (Viscomi & Schultz, Martin N. Silberman, Silberman & Rhine, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Peter N. Hillman, New York City (Andrea H. Stempel, Chadbourne & Parke, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before: NEWMAN, WINTER and MINER, Circuit Judges.

WINTER, Circuit Judge:

Ronald DiCola appeals from Magistrate Judge Buchwald's order granting SwissRe Holding (North America), Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissing appellant's complaint. 1 DiCola argues that his termination by SwissRe violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 623 (1988 & Supp. III 1991). Because his termination resulted from the elimination of his position after that position's responsibilities were greatly reduced, we affirm.


DiCola did not respond to SwissRe's statement of undisputed facts pursuant to the Southern District's Local Civil Rule 3(g).

Because "Rule 3(g) requires that [the statement] 'be deemed to be admitted' " if not disputed, the material facts are not in dispute. Maresco v. Evans Chemetics, 964 F.2d 106, 111 (2d Cir.1992) (citation omitted).

DiCola was hired by SwissRe on March 23, 1981, to be the Manager of Office Services. He was then forty-two. Initially, his job responsibilities involved overseeing a number of functions within SwissRe's Corporate Services Department, including word processing, purchasing, maintenance, supply, library, reception areas, interoffice moves, security, cafeteria, and fire safety.

He was assisted in most of his duties by the Supervisor of Office Services, a position held by Dennis Hamcke since 1985. Hamcke was at the time of his employment thirty-six. Hamcke had day-to-day responsibility for the mailroom, reception, reproduction, and library, and assisted DiCola with security, cafeteria, and fire safety functions.

Over time, various streamlining efforts and restructurings eliminated a number of DiCola's original responsibilities. During DiCola's first few years with SwissRe, maintenance was transferred to the Facilities Group, word processing was decentralized, and purchasing responsibilities were transferred to the Controller's Department. Subsequently, DiCola also lost responsibility for supply, interoffice moves, and library operation. Other responsibilities ceased because the relevant work was completed. DiCola finished the drafting of a fire safety pamphlet and established the necessary security procedures. His cafeteria responsibilities for locating a food service vendor and maintaining a current liquor license were also completed.

Patricia Lioi, then Vice-President of Office Services, was the principal person responsible for the decision to eliminate the position of Manager of Office Services. She was influenced in part by an August 4, 1987 memorandum sent to all SwissRe officers by CEO Theo Obrist. The memo emphasized efficiency and noted the need to rejustify every position. After discussing the elimination of DiCola's position with Obrist, she eliminated the position of Manager of Office Services and terminated DiCola on January 21, 1988. At that time, DiCola and Hamcke were forty-nine and thirty-nine and earned annual salaries of $52,412 and $39,040, respectively. In a file memorandum of January 26, 1988, she stated:

Due to various reorganizations which have taken place over the last several years the responsibilities associated with the [Manager of Office Services] position have been significantly reduced. Many of the remaining responsibilities ... are overlapping with the Office Services Supervisor.

In line with the Company's goal to minimize costs, I decided to eliminate this position from our complement. All duties and responsibilities of this position have been transferred to the Office Services Supervisor effective immediately.

SwissRe's 3(g) statement states that "[b]oth daily responsibility distribution and the savings to the company based on the salary differential influenced Ms. Lioi's choice regarding which position should be eliminated." This statement was based on Lioi's deposition testimony that, after she became Vice-President of Office Services, she reviewed

the entire staffing of the department, what services we provided, [and] how we provided them.... As part of that, there were two positions which I identified as what I felt were excess positions, or positions that I could not defend when I had to defend my budget. One of those positions was office services manager.

Thus, as the 3(g) statement indicates, the elimination of DiCola's position was unrelated to his performance. Indeed, Lioi testified in her deposition that she did not compare the relative merits of Hamcke's and DiCola's job performances. Rather, she stated that, after the diminution of the Manager's responsibilities, the Supervisor of Office Services "was the position that would be correct for this area."

DiCola remained on SwissRe's payroll until May 13, 1988. He received both salary and benefits but was required to perform no services. In addition to a severance package, SwissRe offered to provide assistance with resume and cover letter preparation, as well Finally, SwissRe's 3(g) statement provided that "[a]t no time during [DiCola's] employment with SwissRe ... was [DiCola] subjected to age-based remarks, comments, or slurs. [DiCola's] age was never discussed in any way that could be considered negative.... Nor is there any evidence ... that management kept Hamcke and not [DiCola] because Hamcke was younger."

                as office space, telephone service, and secretarial assistance.   Although SwissRe attempted to relocate DiCola internally, he was not qualified for any available position.   SwissRe was able to relocate another employee whose position was eliminated from the Corporate Services Department and who was twelve years older than DiCola

DiCola filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on August 22, 1988. No action was taken by the EEOC, and DiCola commenced this action on May 11, 1990. SwissRe thereafter moved for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Buchwald granted the motion, stating, "after full discovery, [DiCola] has pointed to no evidence upon which an inference of discrimination or pretext could be based."


The legal principles governing this matter are well established. In our de novo review of a grant of summary judgment, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Maresco, 964 F.2d at 109-10. We affirm if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Because the non-moving party in the instant case...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Lego A/S v. Best-Lock Constr. Toys, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • July 25, 2019
    ...party's] case.’ " Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Giammettei , 34 F.3d 51, 54-5 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting DiCola v. SwissRe Holding (North America ), Inc. , 996 F.2d 30, 32 (2d Cir. 1993) ). If the movant is able to satisfy its burden, "the opposing party must come forward with specific evidence d......
  • Powell v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • March 31, 2012
    ...party's] case.” ’ ” Federal Deposit Insur. Corp. v. Giammettei, 34 F.3d 51, 54 (2d Cir.1994) (quoting DiCola v. SwissRe Holding (North America), Inc., 996 F.2d 30 (2d Cir.1993)). While it is not essential that the plaintiff negate elements of the affirmative defenses by submitting affidavit......
  • Moffitt v. Icynene, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Vermont
    • December 27, 2005
    ...Inc. v. Quality Mkts., Inc., 142 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.1998) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548; DiCola v. SwissRe Holding, Inc., 996 F.2d 30, 32 (2d Cir.1993)). "Credibility assessments, choices between conflicting versions of the events, and the weighing of evidence matters fo......
  • Mullin v. Raytheon Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • April 20, 1998
    ...lower level classification, his salary was reduced to come within the range for grade 12 positions. See DiCola v. SwissRe Holding (North America), Inc., 996 F.2d 30, 33 (2d Cir.1993) ("If a position's salary has been set at a level commensurate with certain job responsibilities and those re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT