In Hoffman v St. Bonaventure University, No. 24-00445, 866.1, 226 N.Y.S.3d 790, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 00763, 2025 WL 427098 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept., Feb. 07, 2025), the court reversed a lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s sex and religious beliefs.
From the decision:
Plaintiff commenced this employment discrimination action alleging that defendant did not select her for a position at defendant because of her sex and religious beliefs. Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. We reverse.
Defendant submitted evidence that a committee consisting of 10 members interviewed plaintiff and another candidate, and assessed the 2 candidates based on a series of questions. The other candidate scored objectively higher than plaintiff, received more positive comments, and had more relevant experience. Defendant, therefore, rebutted plaintiff’s prima facie case of discrimination by establishing that it had “ ‘legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its employment decision’ ” (Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623, 629, 665 N.Y.S.2d 25, 687 N.E.2d 1308 [1997]; see Spinello v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 147 A.D.3d 572, 572, 48 N.Y.S.3d 43 [1st Dept. 2017]; Layaou v. Xerox Corp., 298 A.D.2d 921, 922, 748 N.Y.S.2d 85 [4th Dept. 2002]), thus shifting the burden to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact whether “the legitimate reasons proffered by defendant were merely a pretext for discrimination” (Ferrante, 90 N.Y.2d at 629-630, 665 N.Y.S.2d 25, 687 N.E.2d 1308).
The court further concluded that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact “concerning either the falsity of defendant’s proffered basis for the [employment decision] or that discrimination was more likely the real reason.”