Wright v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.
| Decision Date | 26 January 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:00-CV-6889 GBD FM.,1:00-CV-6889 GBD FM. |
| Citation | 387 F.Supp.2d 314 |
| Parties | Rodney WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Desiree S. Hamilton, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff.
Aaron Schindel, Karen Stefflre, Esq., Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.
This action was referred to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas for a Report and Recommendation ("Report") on defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Magistrate Judge Maas issued a Report wherein he recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. In his Report, Magistrate Judge Maas advised the parties that failure to file timely objections to the Report will constitute a waiver of those objections. Although plaintiff twice requested and was granted an extension of time to file objections to the Report, none of the parties have filed objections and the time to do so has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Where there are no objections, the Court may accept the Report provided there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y.1985); Heisler v. Kralik, 981 F.Supp. 830, 840 (S.D.N.Y.1997), aff'd 164 F.3d 618, 1998 WL 636985 (2d Cir.1998). After reviewing the Report, the Court finds that the record is not facially erroneous. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety and for the reasons stated therein, the motion is hereby granted and the complaint is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE HONORABLE GEORGE B. DANIELS
This is an employment discrimination action brought by plaintiff Rodney Wright ("Wright") pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. The defendants are Wright's former employer, Goldman, Sachs & Company, and several of its employees, Cathy Bernardo, Joseph Newman, Peggy Chow and Gerhard Doetsch. In his Amended Complaint, Wright alleges that, on the basis of his race, he was subjected to disparate treatment, denied a promotion, and ultimately constructively discharged. (Am.Compl.¶ 5).
The Defendants have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that the Defendants' motion be granted and this case dismissed.
On April 4, 2000, Wright filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). In his complaint, Wright alleged that Goldman treated him less favorably than his Asian co-workers, and that he was "constructively terminated" on March 23, 2000. (See Aff. of Karen Stefflre, Esq., dated July 30, 2001 ("Stefflre Aff."), Ex. H). After the EEOC was unable to substantiate these claims, it issued Wright a right-to-sue letter on June 28, 2000. (Id. Ex. I). This lawsuit thereafter was timely commenced on September 13, 2000. (See Docket No. 1).
Wright's original complaint was filed pro se. Subsequently, however, Wright retained Desiree Hamilton as his attorney, and she filed an amended complaint on November 27, 2000. (Docket No. 8). The amended complaint incorporates all three claims that Wright advanced before the EEOC. (See Stefflre Aff. Ex. A (Am.Compl.) ¶ 5 ()).
Following the completion of pretrial discovery, Goldman filed its motion for summary judgment on July 31, 2001. (Docket No. 15). Wright filed his memorandum of law in opposition to the motion on October 19, 2001.1 (Docket No. 18). Thereafter, on March 16, 2004, Your Honor referred the motion to me for a Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 20).
Although Goldman submitted a Rule 56.1 statement of undisputed facts as part of its motion papers, Wright did not submit a separate counterstatement of disputed facts as the Local Civil Rule requires. Moreover, contrary to the Rule, much of the discussion of facts in Wright's memorandum of law opposing summary judgment is bereft of citations to admissible evidence, and many of the citations which are given refer to documents that do not support Wright's factual assertions. For these reasons, the facts set forth in Goldman's Rule 56.1 statement must be deemed admitted. See Local Civ. R. 56.1(c) (); Loucar v. Boston Market Corp., 294 F.Supp.2d 472, 478 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (); Gadsden v. Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc., 210 F.Supp.2d 430, 438 (S.D.N.Y.2002) ().
Viewed in the light most favorable to Wright, the undisputed facts are as follows:
A. Wright's Employment and Supervisors
Wright is an African-American male who was employed by AccountPros, an employment agency that places individuals in temporary positions. . On September 5, 1999, Wright was given a temporary assignment as a "processor" in the Travel and Expense ("T & E") unit of Goldman, Sachs & Company ("Goldman").2 (Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 2; Wright Dep. at 39, 52). The T & E unit is a part of Goldman's accounting services department responsible for processing travel and entertainment expenses. .
During the time that Wright was assigned to the T & E unit, he and three Asian males — Auyoung Heng ("Heng"), Raymond Chan ("Chan") and Alan Lo ("Lo") — worked as "processors," inserting into T & E reports data that had previously been coded by "prepper[s]." (Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 5-6; Wright Dep. at 52-53). Wright remained in the T & E unit as a processor until March 23, 2000, when he resigned his position. (Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 3; Wright Dep. at 99, 127).
Throughout the time that Wright worked at Goldman, Gerhard Doetsch ("Doetsch") was a Goldman vice president and manager of its accounting services department. (Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 7; Doetsch Dep. at 4-5). Holly Brown ("Brown"), an African-American female, was the manager of accounts payable and T & E processing, reporting to Doetsch until November 1999, when she was succeeded by Joseph Newman ("Newman"). . Katherine Bernardo ("Bernardo"), an Asian female, was the T & E unit supervisor, reporting to Brown and then Newman until December 15, 1999, when she was replaced by Janet Lee ("Lee"), also an Asian female. .3 Bernardo, and then Lee, served as Wright's immediate supervisor, in which capacity they assigned work to him and the other processors. (Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 11; Bernardo Dep. at 6, 11-12). Once the T & E reports were completed by the processors, Peggy Chow ("Chow"), an Asian female assigned to the Quality Control unit in the accounting department, was responsible for checking their accuracy. .
B. Wright's Claims of Discrimination
Wright's claims arise out of several incidents that allegedly occurred during his employment at Goldman. Those incidents, and the admissible evidence with respect to them, may be summarized as follows:
1. Denial of Early Release
On one occasion in October or November 1999, Wright informed Bernardo that he could not stay late because he was suffering from an ear infection. (Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 14; Wright Dep. at 83-84). In response, Bernardo told him that everyone in the T & E unit was required to remain, and she did not allow him to leave work early. (Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 15; Wright Dep. at 84). Approximately fifteen minutes later, Bernardo herself left work and Wright repeated his request to Brown, who eventually allowed him to leave. (Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 16-17; Wright Dep. at 84). Wright contends that Bernardo's response to his request was discriminatory because she permitted Heng to leave work early the very next day when he had a stomach ache. (Defs.' R. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 19; Wright Dep. at 84-85).
2. Denial of Overtime
Notwithstanding her response when Wright wished to leave early, on at least two other occasions, Bernardo escorted Wright to the elevator at the end of a workday to prevent him from working overtime. . Wright contends that this constituted discriminatory conduct because Bernardo permitted Chan, Heng, and Chow to remain at work. (Wright Dep. at 87). On at least one of those occasions, however, Ian Alli, a black male from Guyana, also was allowed to work overtime.4 (Bernardo Dep. at 8-9; Stefflre Aff. Ex. G) (Dumana Dep. at 22).
3. Work Assignments
Wright also contends that Bernardo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nakis v. Potter
...told to retire, unfairly disciplined, yelled at by her supervisors and threatened with termination). See also Wright v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 387 F.Supp.2d 314, 325 (S.D.N.Y.2005) ("The constructive discharge standard is not met if the employee's working conditions were simply difficult or ......
-
Conway v. Microsoft Corp.
...With respect to the intent requirement, the plaintiff must show that the employer engaged in deliberate action. Wright v. Goldman, Sachs, Co., 387 F.Supp.2d 314 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (citing Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62, 74 (2d Cir. 2000)). As an initial matter, the in......
-
Krachenfels v. N. Shore Long Island Jewish Health Sys. & N. Shore Univ. Hosp., 13-CV-243 (JFB) (WDW)
...that, at the very least, the plaintiff employee alleges a particular adverse employment action.'" Wright v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 387 F. Supp. 2d 314, 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Petrosino, 385 F.3d at 227)). "[T]he requirement ensures that the fact finder is not left to speculate as to th......
-
Krachenfels v. N. Shore Long Island Jewish Health Sys. & N. Shore Univ. Hosp., 13-CV-243 (JFB) (WDW)
...to 'ensure that, at the very least, the plaintiff employee alleges a particular adverse employment action.'" Wright v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 387 F. Supp. 2d 314, 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Petrosino, 385 F.3d at 227)). "[T]he requirement ensures that the fact finder is not left to specula......