United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ROBERT B. MCKAY, Plaintiff,
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
W. EGINTON, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Robert. B. McKay (“McKay”) alleges that defendant
Board of Trustees of Community Colleges (“the
Board”) discriminated against him because of his gender
by denying him the opportunity for a job interview. The Board
has filed a motion for summary judgment. For the following
reasons, the Board's motion will be granted.
motion for summary judgment will be granted where there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
"Only when reasonable minds could not differ as to the
import of the evidence is summary judgment proper."
Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 502 U.S. 849 (1991).
burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of
any material factual issue genuinely in dispute. American
International Group, Inc. v. London American International
Corp., 664 F.2d 348, 351 (2d Cir. 1981). In determining
whether a genuine factual issue exists, the court must
resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences
against the moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an
essential element of his case with respect to which he has
the burden of proof, then summary judgment is appropriate.
Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. If the nonmoving
party submits evidence which is "merely colorable,
" legally sufficient opposition to the motion for
summary judgment is not met. Anderson, 477 U.S. at
applied for a “Career Specialist” position at
Quinebaug Valley Community College and was not selected for
an interview. The Board contends that McKay cannot show that
its decision was based on gender. Indeed, the Board selected
four female and two male candidates for interviews. McKay
argues that he is more qualified than either of the female
candidates who were interviewed and hired by defendant.
support a failure to hire claim, a plaintiff must first make
out a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that (1)
he is a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for
the job for which he applied, (3) he was denied the job, and
(4) the denial occurred under circumstances that give rise to
an inference of invidious discrimination. See Vivenzio v.
City of Syracuse, 611 F.3d 98, 106 (2d Cir. 2010). The
burden then shifts to the employer to demonstrate a
nondiscriminatory reason for the decision. Id. A
plaintiff must then adduce admissible evidence sufficient to
permit a rational fact finder to find that the employer's
proffered reason is pretext for intentional discrimination.
Id. In other words, a plaintiff's evidence must
be sufficient for a reasonable jury to decide in his favor.
Nabisco, Inc. v Warner-that the defendant
intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at
all times with the plaintiff.” Texas Department of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).
plaintiff cannot rely on “purely conclusory allegations
of discrimination, absent any concrete particulars, ”
otherwise a trial would be necessary in all Title VII cases,
regardless of the merits of the claims. See Meiri v.
Dacon, 759 F.2d 989, 998 (2d Cir. 1985). Moreover, the
mere fact that the Board hired people of a different gender
does not suggest that it failed to hire plaintiff on
account of his gender. See Riddle v. Citigroup,
2014 WL 2767180 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2014). Nevertheless,
plaintiff is not required to produce direct evidence of
discrimination and may rely entirely on circumstantial
evidence. See Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d
114, 119 (2d Cir. 1998). As the Second Circuit has explained:
The entry into a house by a person wearing a wet raincoat and
holding a wet, open umbrella may well be more reliable
evidence of the climate than statements of a person inside
the house looking out a window.
U.S. v. Sureff, 15 F.3d 225, 229 (2d Cir. 1994).
that plaintiff met his burden of establishing a prima facie
case, the Board has come forward with nondiscriminatory bases
for its decision to deny plaintiff an interview.
Plaintiff's job application package was incomplete. It is
undisputed that on the fillable application form, plaintiff
failed to answer prominently displayed questions regarding
whether his employment had been involuntarily terminated
within the last 10 years and whether he had ever been
convicted of a criminal offense. None of the applicants
selected for interview omitted answers to these questions.
Moreover, plaintiff's resume was perceived to be
outdated, as the most recent job listing was from 1973. The
Board also faulted plaintiff for failing to provide evidence
of information technology (“IT”) skills. Finally,
plaintiff did not discuss how his background met the minimum
qualifications for the job, namely experience with case
management in the criminal justice field. In contrast, the
two women whom the Board eventually hired both had experience
providing transitional services for inmates and ex-offenders.
The Board maintains that gender was not a consideration when
the Search Committee made the decision not to interview
plaintiff for the Career Specialist position.
court notes that plaintiff failed to comply with Federal Rule
56(c) and Local Rule 56(a)3, which require a party asserting
that a fact is genuinely disputed to support the assertion by
citing to materials in the record that would be admissible at
trial. Plaintiff simply denies certain of defendant's
56(a)1 numbered paragraphs, without explanation or citation,
leaving the court in the dark as to the bases of
plaintiff's denials. Plaintiff's conclusory
“disputed issues of material fact” statement also
fails to cite to the record. For example, plaintiff simply
provides: “Plaintiff is far more qualified for the jobs
than either of the successful female candidates.”
Pl.'s Resp. at 19 [ECF No. 109].
Failure to provide specific citations to evidence in the
record as required by this Local Rule may result in the Court
deeming admitted certain facts that are supported by the
evidence in accordance with Local Rule 56(a)1, or in the
Court imposing sanctions, including, when the movant fails to
comply, an denying the motion for summary judgment, and when
the opponent fails to comply, an order granting the motion if