Lidowitz v. Rite Aid Corporation et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, defendants' motion is granted as to the age discrimination claims under the ADEA and NYSHRL, and denied as to the disability discrimination claims under ADA and NYSHRL. So Ordered. Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 8/1/2013. (Padilla, Kristin)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------X ROBERT LIDOWITZ, Plaintiff, -against- FILED  CLERK    8/1/2013 3:06 pm   U.S. DISTRICT COURT  EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK  LONG ISLAND OFFICE  MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CV 12-465 (LDW) (ARL) RITE AID CORPORATION and RITE AID OF NEW YORK, INC. d/b/a RITE AID, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X WEXLER, District Judge Plaintiff Robert Lidowitz (“Lidowitz”) brings this action against defendants Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid of New York, Inc. d/b/a Rite Aid (“defendants”) asserting claims for age and disability discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Lidowitz opposes the motion only as to the disability discrimination claims under the ADA and NYSHRL. Upon consideration, the Court finds that genuine disputes of material fact exist precluding the entry of summary judgment as to the disability discrimination claims under the ADA and NYSHRL. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 2 (1986); Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir. 1994). Because Lidowitz does not oppose dismissal of the age discrimination claims under the ADEA and NYSHRL, those claims are dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, defendants’ motion is granted as to the age discrimination claims under the ADEA and NYSHRL, and denied as to the disability discrimination claims under the ADA and NYSHRL. SO ORDERED. /s/ LEONARD D. WEXLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: Central Islip, New York August 1, 2013

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?