Zaza v. American Airlines

Filing 43

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS -- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, pro se Plaintiff's timely objections to the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by the Hon. Steven Tiscione, U.S.M.J., on August 19, 2017, are overruled. Upon due consideration of the R&R and all the submissions relating thereto, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and this action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case and to mail a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Summary Order to pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 3/22/2017. (Irizarry, Dora)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------x
SILVANA ZAZA, pro se,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
AMERICAN AIRLINES,
:
:
Defendants.
:
----------------------------------------------------------------x
DORA L. IRIZARRY, Chief Judge:

SUMMARY ORDER
ADOPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION
14-cv-4046 (DLI)(ST)

Silvana Zaza (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,1 initiated this action on June 27, 2014,
alleging violations by American Airlines (“Defendant”) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a) (“ADEA”). (See Complaint, Dkt. Entry No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her race, gender, and age, resulting in her
termination from the company, and was retaliated against based on grievances she filed about the
company’s failure to recall her from furlough and failure to promote her. On September 22, 2015,
Defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims (Def. Mot. for Summary Judgment
(“Motion”), Dkt. Entry No. 28; see Dkt. Entry Nos. 29 (Pl. Opp.) & 30 (Def. Reply)), which this
Court referred to United States Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione for the preparation of a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”).
On August 19, 2016, Magistrate Judge Tiscione issued a thorough and well-reasoned R&R,
recommending that Defendant’s Motion be granted in its entirety. (Dkt. Entry No. 31.) In

1

The Court is mindful that pro se pleadings are held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (citation omitted). Courts should “interpret [such
papers] to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Forsyth v. Fed’n Emp’t & Guidance Serv., 409 F. 3d
565, 569 (2d Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Though a court need not act as an advocate
for pro se litigants, in such cases “there is a greater burden and a correlative greater responsibility upon the district
court to insure that constitutional deprivations are redressed and that justice is done.” Davis v. Kelly, 160 F. 3d 917,
922 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).

particular, the magistrate judge concluded the following: (i) Plaintiff timely filed a charge for
exhaustion purposes as to her wrongful termination claim, but her claims relating to recall and
failure to promote were untimely (Id. at 11-18); (ii) Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case
of discrimination with respect to her wrongful termination claim as she was unable to demonstrate
that her disciplinary history was comparable to those of the employees who were reinstated after
their termination for infractions similar to those committed by Plaintiff (Id. at 20-23);
(iii) Defendant had set forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Plaintiff’s termination and
the later decision to deny Plaintiff’s appeal of the termination decision (Id. at 23); (iv) Plaintiff
failed to present sufficient admissible evidence that the reason offered for Plaintiff’s termination
was a pretext for discrimination (Id. at 23-25); and (v) Plaintiff’s retaliation claims should be
dismissed as Plaintiff made no allegation of discrimination in either of her grievances (Id. at 2526). On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R&R (“Objections,” Dkt.
Entry No. 35), and Defendant timely opposed (Dkt. Entry. No. 38). The Court granted Plaintiff
leave to file a reply, which she did on October 19, 2016. (“Reply,” Dkt. Entry No. 42.)
For the reasons set forth below, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.
DISCUSSION2
When a party objects to an R&R, a district judge must make a de novo determination as to
those portions of the R & R to which a party objects. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); United States
v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). However, if a party “simply relitigates his
original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.”
Antrobus v. New York City Dep’t of Sanitation, 2016 WL 5390120, at * 1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26,
2016) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Rolle v. Educ. Bus Transp., Inc.,

2

The Court assumes familiarity with the facts as outlined in the R&R. See R&R at 2-9.

2

2014 WL 4662267, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2014) (“A rehashing of the same arguments set forth
in the original papers . . . would reduce the magistrate’s work to something akin to a meaningless
dress rehearsal.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, the Court will not
consider “arguments, case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but [were] not,
presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance.” Santiago v. City of New York, 2016 WL
5395837, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). After
its review, the district court may then “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” FED. R.
CIV. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Here, Plaintiff’s Objections and Reply, which together consist of over 60 pages (inclusive
of exhibits), fails to articulate any specific objection to the R&R, but instead attempts to relitigate
issues that were briefed before, and decided by, the magistrate judge. Plaintiff asserts that “there
are many inaccuracies, discrepancies that need to be presented to trial” (Objections at 1), but,
tellingly, never describes or points to any inaccuracies or discrepancies within the R&R itself (see
generally Objections). Instead, Plaintiff focuses on purported contradictions in the statements
made by Defendant’s employees in documents sent to Plaintiff and during Plaintiff’s disciplinary
hearing (see generally Id.), all of which was before the magistrate judge.
As Plaintiff has not properly objected, this Court need only review the R&R for clear error.
The Court has reviewed the entire record, including the R&R and Plaintiff’s Objections, and,
finding no clear error, adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court.

3

CONCLUSION
Upon due consideration and review, the objections are overruled. Accordingly, the R&R
is adopted in its entirety and summary judgment is granted to Defendant. This action is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 22, 2017
/s/
DORA L. IRIZARRY
Chief Judge

4