2 genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The role of the court is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Cioffi v. Averill Park Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.,
444 F.3d 158, 162 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). A genuine issue of fact exists when there is sufficient “evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.”
, 477 U.S. at 252. In determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, a court resolves all ambiguities and draws all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
. at 255. The Second Circuit has cautioned that “[w]here an employer acted with discriminatory intent, direct evidence of that intent will only rarely be available, so affidavits and depositions must be carefully scrutinized for circumstantial proof which, if believed, would show discrimination.”
Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp
., 596 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir. 2010). With that standard in mind, the pertinent facts, undisputed, or where disputed considered in plaintiffs’ favor, are as follows:
The Transit Authority is the country’s largest mass transit agency, employing about 45,000 people, including approximately 10,000 bus operators and 3,000 train operators.
The Court observes that the copies of plaintiff’s opposition brief and Rule 56.1 statement submitted in the fully-briefed-motion packet via ECF on March 12, 2013 by defendant’s counsel, Richard Schoolman, contained formatting errors and strange typographical features such as bolded words in odd places and multiple font types and sizes which were not, according to plaintiff’s March 15, 2013 letter to this Court, in plaintiff’s originals served on Defendants (in electronic format). In his March 18, 2013 letter, Mr. Schoolman did not respond to plaintiff’s allegation that he altered plaintiff’s submission, however based on the electronic documents that plaintiff subsequently filed with the Court, which were originally served on Defendants, that does appear to be the case. Defendant’s counsel is advised that under this Court’s Individual Practice, it is the movant’s obligation to file an
copy of plaintiff’s opposition brief. Any further misconduct will result in sanctions.
Case 1:04-cv-02331-SLT-MDG Document 209 Filed 03/31/14 Page 2 of 55 PageID #: 3601