Branch v. State University of New York Downstate Medical Center ( 2022 )

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K E LECTRONICALLY FILED ROMAIN R. BRANCH, DOC #: _________________ DATE FILED: _3/31/2022_______ Plaintiff, -against- 18 Civ. 9516 (AT) STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK ORDER DOWNSTATE MEDICAL CENTER, and AYMAN FANOUS, Individually and as Chair of the Department of Psychiatry, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK DOWNSTATE MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiff, Romain R. Branch, brings this action against Defendants State University of New York (“SUNY”) and Ayman Fanous, alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the New York State Human Rights Law (the “NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq.; and the New York City Human Rights Law (the “NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8- 107 et seq. Third Amend. Compl., ECF No. 41. On February 5, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. ECF No. 75. On July 20, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s retaliation and hostile work environment claims under Title VII, § 1981, § 1983, and the NYSHRL, as well as Plaintiff’s NYCHRL claims against Fanous in his individual capacity, and denied Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s disparate treatment claims under Title VII, § 1981, § 1983, and the NYSHRL, as well as Plaintiff’s NYCHRL claims against SUNY. ECF No. 114. Defendants now move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining claims. ECF No. 173. Because the Court finds that there are no genuine disputes of material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiff’s disparate treatment claims under Title VII, § 1981, § 1983, and the NYSHRL, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48 (1986), Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on those claims is GRANTED. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the NYCHRL, and, therefore, those claims are DISMISSED. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC, 873 F.3d 394, 405 (2d Cir. 2017). In due course, the Court shall issue a memorandum opinion addressing Defendants’ motion. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental letter brief is DENIED. See ECF No. 204. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 173 and 204. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2022 New York, New York ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge