Opinion
March 29, 2001.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.H.O.), entered May 3, 2000, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Norman Mednick, for plaintiff-appellant.
Anthony Dougherty, for defendant-respondent.
Before: Sullivan, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Friedman, JJ.
The complaint in this action for retaliatory discharge was properly dismissed in view of plaintiff's failure to make out a prima facie case (see, Matter of Pace University v. New York City Commission on Human Rights, 85 N.Y.2d 125). While plaintiff's comments regarding a "glass ceiling" with respect to tenured female professors in defendant's History Department could constitute a protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3[a]) and the New York Human Rights Laws (Executive Law §§ 296[a] and [e]), there was no showing that the comment caused her to be discharged from her employment. The evidence credited by the trial court showed instead that plaintiff's employment with defendant terminated at the end of the 1995-96 academic year pursuant to the express terms of her one-year, non-renewable appointment. We note, moreover, that plaintiff was offered, but rejected, a part-time adjunct position for the ensuing academic year.
Even if plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, defendant articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the nonrenewal of plaintiff's contract (see, Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 66 N.Y.2d 937), and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the articulated reasons were pretexts for discrimination (see, Matter of Natl. Basketball Assn. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 115 A.D.2d 365, 367, affd 68 N.Y.2d 644).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.