The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X For Online Publication Only
HUAYUAN CHEN,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
-against- 15-CV-6698 (JMA) (AYS)
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,
EDWARD W. TESTA, JR., &
KATHLEEN LEVINESS,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Huayuan Chen (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Stony Brook
University, Edward W. Testa, Jr., and Kathleen Leviness (together “Defendants”), on November
23, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to discrimination based upon her
age and national origin in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and the New York State
Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq. Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on October 7, 2019. (ECF No. 126.) On May 27, 2020, the Court referred the
motion for summary judgment to Magistrate Judge Shields for a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”). (Electronic Order, 5/27/2020.) On July 20, 2020, Judge Shields issued an R&R
recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted. (ECF No. 134.) Plaintiff filed a timely
objection to the R&R, (ECF No. 137), to which Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 138.)
After conducting a review of the full record (including the motion papers, R&R, objections, and
opposition) and applicable law, the Court adopts Judge Shields’s R&R in its entirety as the opinion
of the Court.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a court must “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations to which
objection[s] [are] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Brown v. Ebert, No. 5–CV–5579,
-- --------------
2006 WL 3851152, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006). The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). Those portions of a report and recommendation to which there is no specific
reasoned objection are reviewed for clear error. See Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48,
51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
I have undertaken a de novo review of the record, the R&R, the objections, and the
opposition. I have considered all of Plaintiff’s arguments and find none of them persuasive. In
attempting to raise an inference of discrimination, Plaintiff’s objection stresses, inter alia, that:
Plaintiff repeatedly alleged that she was treated differently than her white
counterpart, Ms. Agro, including that, despite Ms. Agro’s mistakes and errors, she
received high marks on her evaluations while Plaintiff received the lowest marks
and was terminated. See Def. Ex. 61; Pl. Ex. VV. Moreover, as detailed above, Ms.
Agro’s delays and mistakes were even attributed to Plaintiff. (See infra, Sec. B.II.;
see also Opp. Memo at 8, 16). Plaintiff, in her Opposition Memo, devoted a whole
subsection to note the disparate treatment between herself and Ms. Agro. (See Opp.
Memo at 21-23 (Section C.3)).
(Pl’s Obj. at 18–19.).
The Court has examined the entire record in this case and, construing all of the evidence in
the light most favorable to Plaintiff, concludes that Agro’s performance did not render her similarly
situated to Plaintiff. Neither Agro’s performance nor any of the other circumstances concerning
Agro give rise to an inference of discrimination. The evidence in the record is simply insufficient
to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Moreover, even assuming, for the sake of
argument, that Plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of discrimination, after reviewing all of
the evidence, it is clear to the Court that a reasonable jury could not ultimately find—based on all
of the evidence, including the evidence concerning Argo—that the decision not to renew Plaintiff’s
contract was discriminatory.
Based on the foregoing, the Court adopts Judge Shields’s R&R in its entirety as the opinion
of this Court. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is
directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 30, 2020
Central Islip, New York
/s/ (JMA)
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE