Plaintiff's employment with the corporate defendant began in 1989. In July 1990, plaintiff became the senior marketing director of distribution services (DS); in that capacity, plaintiff supervised the marketing of the company's global security services (GSS), world banknote services (WBS) and foreign currency services. In July 1991, the corporate defendant decided to transfer DS's marketing effort to its products management group (PMG), and plaintiff became responsible for GSS and WBS under the aegis of PMG. In October 1991, the company decided to discontinue GSS owing to its lack of profitability. The decision reduced plaintiff's responsibilities to the supervision of WBS, a task already performed by WBS's director. By memorandum dated November 5, 1991, plaintiff was notified of the resultant discontinuance of his job and offered a benefits package. Meanwhile, in the fall of 1991, an investigation into plaintiff's expense reports was conducted, and inaccuracies and irregularities were revealed. At the conclusion of the investigation, plaintiff was informed of the termination of his employment effective November 13, 1991 "due to loss of confidence." Plaintiff then commenced the present action alleging that his discharge was racially discriminatory.
Supreme Court concluded that plaintiff had not met either his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination or his secondary burden to show that the reasons advanced by defendant were pretextual, and that there existed no basis for liability on the part of the individual defendants.
The Appellate Division concluded, inter alia, that defendants articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination, that plaintiff failed to show that this reason was a pretext, that plaintiff's allegation of retaliatory discharge was unaccompanied by any showing of an element of a subjective retaliatory motive, and that the individual defendants were properly granted summary judgment because they had no power over the challenged personnel decision.
Scott v Citicorp Servs., 236 A.D.2d 227, affirmed.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Defendants in this race discrimination action moved for summary judgment, and met their burden of rebutting the prima facie case of discrimination by setting forth evidence of an independent, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff's employment. In response, plaintiff did not raise a question of fact concerning the falsity of defendants' proffered basis for the termination and that discrimination was more likely the real reason for his termination ( compare, Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623). Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly granted.
Judges TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK and WESLEY concur; Chief Judge KAYE taking no part.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.