AMBROSIO DBA v. William P. Marks, in his official capacity as Regional Director of the New York State Division of Human Rights, Defendant. (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Larry D’Ambrosio (doing business as Western Contractors), pro se, sued contractor Bast-Hatfield, Inc. (“BHI”); BHI employees Michael Salisbury and AJ Lomnes; and Lois McLaughlin, the director of the New York State University Construction Fund’s (“SUCF”) Minority and Women’s Business Opportunity Program (“MWBE Program”), bringing claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and New York state law. He alleged Western subcontracted to perform roofing work for BHI and that BHI unfairly blamed him for project delays, failed to pay him, forced him and his employees to work in an unsafe environment, and disparaged Western’s work product. He also alleged that McLaughlin violated his due process and equal protection rights by failing to investigate or mediate his conflicts with BHI and its employees. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, “resolv[ing] all ambiguities and draw[ing] all inferences against the moving party.” Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep’t, 706 F.3d 120, 126–27 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). “Summary judgment is proper only when, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334, 344 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ).

Upon such review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. Although D’Ambrosio claims that BHI and its employees treated him and his subcontracting operation unfairly, the district court correctly concluded that there was no evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether this treatment was motivated by racially discriminatory intent. Moreover, the district court correctly determined that D’Ambrosio failed to show that he or Western were employees of BHI within the meaning of Title VII, rather than subcontractors, offered no evidence showing that BHI and its employees were state actors for the purposes of § 1983, and failed to show that a waiver of a jury trial in the contract he signed with BHI was unenforceable. Finally, the district court correctly determined there was no evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether McLaughlin’s position as director of SUCF’s MWBE Program obligated her to mediate D’Ambrosio’s conflicts with BHI, such that her failure to do so violated his constitutional rights, or that she was otherwise involved in any constitutional violation. We therefore affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned September 28, 2017, decision.

We have considered all of D’Ambrosio’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.