Stidhum v. 161-10 Hillside Auto Ave, LLC

── Stidhum v. 161-10 Hillside Auto Ave, LLC ── Case No.: 25-490 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 18, 2026 Category: General 25-490 Stidhum v. 161-10 Hillside Auto Ave, LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges, JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, District Judge. * _____________________________________ Leticia Francine Stidhum, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 25-490 161-10 Hillside Auto Ave, LLC, d/b/a Hillside Auto Outlet, Hillside Auto Mall, Inc., d/b/a Hillside Auto Mall, Ishaque * Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Thanwalla, Jory Baron, Andris Guzman, Defendants-Appellees, Ronald M. Baron, Defendant. _____________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: TIFFANY TROY, John Troy, Aaron Schweitzer, Troy Law, PLLC, Flushing, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: MATTHEW A. BROWN, Joseph M. Labuda, Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC, Lake Success, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Merchant, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Leticia Stidhum appeals from a January 29, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Merchant, J.) granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Stidhum’s sex and 2 pregnancy discrimination claims. The district court concluded that Stidhum failed to state a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination because she failed to identify any adverse employment action. Defendants-Appellees argue that we can affirm on the alternate basis that Stidhum failed to present sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent to defeat summary judgment. We agree with Defendants that no reasonable jury could infer discrimination based on this record, and we therefore affirm. We review the district court’s entry of summary judgment de novo, construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor. Covington Specialty Ins. Co. v. Indian Lookout Country Club, Inc., 62 F.4th 748, 752 (2d Cir. 2023). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. * * * The discrimination claims here stem from Stidhum’s employment at a car dealership between December 2018 and January 2019, and are brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as well as New