"Former employee sued the Town of Eastchester to recover for harm he allegedly suffered while employed with the Town of Eastchester Police Department (“Department”), including his ultimate termination.
"In the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Barberan asserted claims for discrimination based on his Hispanic national origin and for retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”).
"The district court concluded that Barberan failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, failed to show that the Town’s reasons for the adverse employment actions were pretextual and that the real reason was discrimination, and granted summary judgment for the Town. See Barberan v. Town of Eastchester, No. 19-cv-10983-VR, 2025 WL 962815, at *16, *18 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025).
"On appeal, Barberan challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Town only with respect to his Section 1983 and NYSHRL discrimination claims.
"And as to those discrimination claims, his challenge is limited to his termination (the other claimed adverse actions were abandoned).
"For the reasons stated below, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED."
Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's ruling posted on the Internet.