Rodriguez v. Long Island American Water, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Rodriguez v. Long Island American Water, Inc.

Rodriguez v. Long Island American Water, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Reyes Rodriguez
Defendant:	Long Island American Water, Inc.
Case Number:	2:2012cv02970
Filed:	June 13, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	Joseph F. Bianco
Presiding Judge:	E. Thomas Boyle
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
September 26, 2014	Filing 36 ORDER granting 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated herein, defendant's motion is granted. With respect to the race discrimination claim, as set forth in plaintiff's deposition and as confir med at oral argument, it is uncontroverted that plaintiff falsified his timesheet and that, when confronted about the discrepancy on the timesheet, plaintiff lied about his whereabouts and provided additional false information. Plaintiff has offered no evidence to attempt to rebut these legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his termination, other than to point to other workers whom he argues committed similar misconduct and were not fired. Having examined the entire record, reviewed the s ubmissions of the parties, and heard oral argument, the Court concludes that no rational jury could find that these alleged comparators were similarly situated to plaintiff. It is uncontroverted that the comparators never affirmatively recorded that they were working when they were not and, even more importantly, did not deny their misconduct, or provide false information, when they were confronted. In short, even construing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, there is no rational basis for a jury to conclude that his termination was based upon his race, rather than his undisputed falsification of a timesheet and repeated lies when questioned. Similarly, with respect to plaintiffs retaliation claim, there is simply no evidence that could support such a claim. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to the federal claims, and the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any state law claims. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 9/26/2014. (Lamb, Conor)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 26, 2014

Filing 36 ORDER granting 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated herein, defendant's motion is granted. With respect to the race discrimination claim, as set forth in plaintiff's deposition and as confir med at oral argument, it is uncontroverted that plaintiff falsified his timesheet and that, when confronted about the discrepancy on the timesheet, plaintiff lied about his whereabouts and provided additional false information. Plaintiff has offered no evidence to attempt to rebut these legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his termination, other than to point to other workers whom he argues committed similar misconduct and were not fired. Having examined the entire record, reviewed the s ubmissions of the parties, and heard oral argument, the Court concludes that no rational jury could find that these alleged comparators were similarly situated to plaintiff. It is uncontroverted that the comparators never affirmatively recorded that they were working when they were not and, even more importantly, did not deny their misconduct, or provide false information, when they were confronted. In short, even construing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, there is no rational basis for a jury to conclude that his termination was based upon his race, rather than his undisputed falsification of a timesheet and repeated lies when questioned. Similarly, with respect to plaintiffs retaliation claim, there is simply no evidence that could support such a claim. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to the federal claims, and the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any state law claims. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 9/26/2014. (Lamb, Conor)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rodriguez v. Long Island American Water, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Reyes Rodriguez
Represented By:	Steven A. Morelli
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Long Island American Water, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?