DeFRANCIS v. NORTH SHORE PLAINVIEW HOSPITAL (2008)

In an action pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law (see Executive Law § 296), to recover damages for gender discrimination, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered March 29, 2007, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The plaintiff, an at-will employee, claims that he was terminated from his employment as a security guard at the defendant, North Shore Plainview Hospital (hereinafter the Hospital), as a result of gender discrimination.   To establish its entitlement to summary judgment in a gender discrimination case, a defendant “must demonstrate either plaintiff's failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their challenged actions, the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether their explanations were pretextual” (Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 305, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998;  see Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623, 631, 665 N.Y.S.2d 25, 687 N.E.2d 1308;  Hemingway v. Pelham Country Club, 14 A.D.3d 536, 536-537, 789 N.Y.S.2d 178;  Maguire v. Quaker Ridge Golf Club, 306 A.D.2d 253, 760 N.Y.S.2d 234).

 Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that it terminated the plaintiff's employment for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.   In response, the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of material fact as to whether the termination of his employment occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination or as to whether the hospital's motive was pretextual (see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d at 306-308, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998;  Castro v. New York Univ., 5 A.D.3d 135, 136, 773 N.Y.S.2d 29;  Liebowitz v. Luitpold Pharms., 288 A.D.2d 352, 734 N.Y.S.2d 459;  Dodd v. Middletown Lodge [Elks Club] No. 1097, 277 A.D.2d 276, 715 N.Y.S.2d 343;  Gilroy v. Continental Corp., 237 A.D.2d 251, 655 N.Y.S.2d 397;  Ioele v. Alden Press, 145 A.D.2d 29, 35, 536 N.Y.S.2d 1000;  see also Hemingway v. Pelham Country Club, 14 A.D.3d at 536-537, 789 N.Y.S.2d 178;  Oross v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 300 A.D.2d 457, 458, 751 N.Y.S.2d 580).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion.