Opinion

Raheim v. New York City Board of Education

  • 304 F. App'x 905
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Filed
Dec 15, 2008
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.4%

The opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Abdel Raheim appeals from the August 17, 2006 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bianco, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees, the New York City Board of Education (the “Board”) and P.S. 4 School Principal, Ms. Ellie Greenberg (“Ms. Greenberg”), and dismissing Plaintiffs complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

We review the district court’s summary judgment decision de novo. Roe v. City of Waterbury, 542 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir.2008).

In two separate complaints (consolidated below), Raheim alleges that the Board and Ms. Greenberg violated his rights under Title VII by discriminating against him by reason of his religion and national origin. Raheim alleges that Defendants-Appellants: (1) fired him (twice); (2) failed to re-hire him; (3) failed to promote him; (4) failed to provide equal terms and conditions of employment; and (5) retaliated against him. The Board and Ms. Green-berg submitted evidence that Raheim had: slapped and physically restrained students, provided students with answers on standardized tests, sexually harassed female colleagues (e.g., by trying to kiss them, pat their backs, or put his arms around them), and otherwise received unsatisfactory performance ratings. Raheim denies some of these allegations; but even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to him, we agree with the district court that “no reasonable jury could find that plaintiff was discriminated against because he is Egyptian or because he is Muslim.” Accordingly, we affirm the district court on the merits for substantially the same reasons laid out in Judge Bianco’s comprehensive opinion of August 17, 2006.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.