Response to best buy dismissal

So I’ll start with some of the evidence that was produced during the case (documents), and I’ll explain what they are and what they mean.

Best Buy had produced my employee time-clock punches which showed the days and times that I came into work. Throughout 2015 I was being scheduled to work for a duration that violated New York Codes Rules and Regulations Part 142 § 142-2.3 Call-in pay, which itself requires that an employee such as myself receives at least 4 hours of pay regardless of the number of hours actually worked. With this in mind, I was consistently scheduled to work from 6pm to 10pm on Saturdays, which was a shift that was almost never fulfilled, this is because we closed at 9pm. This means, that this same shift which I was being scheduled for, was not a legitimate shift; as it could not be lawfully adhered to. So now, if Best buy wasn’t deliberately harassing me with my parenting time with my child, then what other form of harassment were they attempting to accomplish by scheduling me for a shift that was both non-existent and superficial?

From this simple record of my time-clock punches, this matter of discrimination as a single male parent is reduced to whether or not Best Buy knew that I was seeing my son on Saturdays; which this same fact was found to be true in the New York State Department of Labor’s findings, for my corresponding unemployment claim (third page).

So, both of those pieces of evidence were provided to the court at the end of the case as evidence that I was discriminated against but, of course, there’s obviously the possibility that my case was dismissed because I didn’t manage to genuinely prove anything, right? Or there was some other facet of law that I didn’t properly address that made it so that even though I was discriminated against, I didn’t construct my case properly enough for the court to be able to enter a judgment against Best Buy. Well, considering how the court writes in the dismissal of my case “On his failure to promote claim, plaintiff cannot sustain even the de minimis requirements of a prima facie case.”, this means that the court doesn’t feel this way even in the slightest, as a failure to show “prima facie” means that I didn’t even justify so much as the allegation that I was discriminated against…

If I had failed to meet the burden of proof that I was required to in order to get the ruling that I needed, then the dismissal would clearly speak to this because it’s crystal clear that I was fired for not letting Best Buy take me away from my child; and stating in the dismissal that a judgment could not be rendered in my favor because there were some legal precedents that were left unsatisfied; then this would have set fourth that the case needed to be redone by a professional litigator to reflect its merits.