Villar v. City of New York (135 F. Supp. 3d 105, 2015)

OPINION

DEBORAH A. BATTS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Maria Villar (“Plaintiff’ or “Vil-lar”), a Hispanic female, brings this employment discrimination action against the City of New York, Deputy Inspector Michael Yanosik, and Lieutenant John P. McGovern (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race and sex by subjecting her to improper discipline, terminating her, failing to promote her, denying her overtime, and subjecting her to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her for hér complaints of discrimination. Defendants now move pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 for Summary Judgment on each of Plaintiffs claims.

For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Defendant the City of New York (the “City”) is a municipal corporation that operates the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”). Defendant Deputy Inspector Michael Yanosik (‘Yanosik”) was Commanding Officer of NYPD’s Building Maintenance Section (“BMS”) from at least November 2004 to August 2006 and from May 2008 to at least October 2008. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 49, 54; Pl.’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 49; PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 74.) Defendant Lieutenant John P. McGovern (“McGovern”) was a lieutenant in NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau (“LAB”) on July 9, 2004. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶.13; Avallone Decl. Ex. RRR.) Plaintiff Maria Villar was appointed a Police Officer in NYPD on January 30, 1995. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶4.) At all times relevant to this action prior to her termination, Plaintiff was employed by the City as a Lieutenant in the NYPD. (See Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 1.)

B. Arrests of Plaintiffs Brothers and Issuance of Charge

On or about July 5, 2004, Plaintiffs brother, Sergio De Los Santos (“Sergio”), was arrested on drug-related charges. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 16.) Late that night, Sergio called Plaintiff and informed her that he had been arrested but expected to be released the following morning. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 17; PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 17; Villar Dep. 39:5-40:l.)> On July 6, 2004, Plaintiff called , the Queens Central Booking Court Unit and asked if Sergio had been released. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 18; Villar Dep. 40:16-17.) According to Plaintiff, the Court Clerk at Queens Central Booking told Plaintiff that Sergio was not going to be released because there was a big investigation involving search warrants and wiretaps.. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 18; PL’s, Resp. Defs.’-56.1 Stmt. ¶ 18; Villar Dep. 41:7-9.) That same day,. Plaintiff called the Expedited Affidavit Program at the Queens Central Booking Intake Unit .and asked Police Officer Kelvin McKoy for the status of Sergio’s case. (Defs,’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 19; PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1, Stmt. ¶ 19; Villar Dep. 44:20-25.) Plaintiff was friends with McKoy and had worked with him for two years at Queens Central Booking. (PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56,1 Stmt. ¶ 19.) McKoy told Plaintiff that “the folder wasn’t ready yet,” which meant that Sergio was not going to be arraigned yet, and that his case involved a wiretap. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶20; Villar Dep. 71:19-72:8.)'

At some point on July 6/2004, Plaintiff called another of her brothers, Alberto Villar (“Alberto”) and told him that Sergio had not yet been released and that there was a big investigation involving tape recordings of Sergio and search warrants. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶21;. Villar Dep. 48:2-24.) Alberto was already aware that Sergio had been arrested. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 21.) It is not clear whether this conversation occurred before or-after Plaintiffs conversation with McKoy. (Compare Vil-lar Dep. 44:22-48:24, with Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. G, at DOA0047-DOA0048.) At some point after her conversation with McKoy, Plaintiff again called Alberto to tell him that Sergio still had not, been arraigned. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 23.) .

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Alberto, the NYPD’s Narcotics Division was investigating Alberto and Sergio, had placed a wiretap on their telephones, and recorded the July 6, 2004 conversations between Alberto and Plaintiff. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 24-25.) According to Detective Joseph Fusco, who was involved in the investigation of Alberto and Sergio, after his investigation team learned that Plaintiff had told Alberto that wiretaps were involved in the investigation, they decided to arrest Alberto and to dismantle the case prematurely. (Schowengerdt Decl. Ex.'G, at DOA006-007.) At the time"Alberto1 was arrested, he was in possession of an NYPD duffel bag containing two kilograms of heroin. (Defs? 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 31.) He subsequently pled guilty to criminal ■ felony charges, and Sergio- pled guilty- to 'the sale of narcotics. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 38-39.)

The Queens Narcotics Division subsequently notified the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) of Plaintiffs call to Alberto. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 40; Pl.’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.Í Stmt. ¶ 40.) On July 7, 2004, three supervisors came to Plaintiffs house, informed her that she was being suspended, and removed her firearms and shield. (Defs,’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶42.) When Plaintiff asked one of her supervisors, Captain Timothy Kerr, why she was being suspended, he told her, “as per Chief Cam-pisi, you are suspended for the good order of the department.” (Villar Dep. 203:1-4.) On July 15, 2004, a Charge was issued against Plaintiff by NYPD, stating that Plaintiff “did wrongfully and without authorization divulge or discuss official Department business with a. person, identity known to this Department.”. (Schowen-gerdt Decl. Ex. E, at DOA0150.) Plaintiff was served with the Charge when she returned from her suspension on August 9, 2004. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶45; Schowen-gerdt Decl. Ex. E, at DOA0151.) At this time, she was assigned to the Safety Division Borough and placed on modified duty; modified duty involves assignment only to non-enforcement duties pending a determination of fitness to perform police duties. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 45-46, 48.)

C. Assignment to NYPD Building Maintenance Section

In November 2004, Plaintiff was transferred to BMS, where she remained on modified duty. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 47; Villar Dep. 212:19-22, 223:17-18.) Plaintiffs supervisor at BMS, Yanosik, told Plaintiff that pursuant to orders he had received, she did not have supervisory status; Yanosik subsequently placed Plaintiff under the supervision of a Sergeant and assigned her to work with a Police Officer who was on full duty. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 49-50; PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 49-50; PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 36; Meyer Dep. 31:22-24; Villar Dep. 213:14-15.) Plaintiff alleges and submits evidence that Yanosik permitted Spencer Colgan, a Caucasian male lieutenant who was on modified duty from December 28, 2005 to September 27, 2006, to maintain his supervisory responsibilities while on modified duty; Plaintiff also alleges that Yano-sik gave some of her responsibilities to Colgan. (Avallone Decl. Ex. FF; PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 58-59; Meyer Dep. 43:12-16, 65:10-24.) Captain David Meyer, who also worked at BMS at this time, testified that he believed Yanosik did not give Plaintiff supervisory responsibilities because she “wasn’t involved or wasn’t one of the guys.” (Meyer Dep. 53:8-9.) According to Plaintiff and Meyer, Yanosik also denied her overtime during this period but permitted Caucasian male lieutenants to work a significant amount of overtime. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 49-50; Meyer Dep. 39:25-40:22.)

In August 2006, Yanosik took an educational leave of absence and was replaced by Meyer. (Defs.1 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 51.) Meyer permitted Plaintiff to take on supervisory duties, and Plaintiff does not allege that she ’was treated poorly under Meyer’s command. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 52; PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 52; Villar Dep. 215:4-9.)

In May 2008, Meyer transferred out of BMS and Yanosik returned as BMS’s Commanding Officer and Plaintiffs supervisor. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 54; Meyer Dep. 54:19-21.) In June 2008, Yanosik asked Plaintiff to file some papers in his office and to move a desk and conference table in his office five feet.. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 55.) On the morning of June 20, 2008, Yanosik allegedly yelled at Plaintiff and threatened to suspend her if she-did not provide him with a particular form -she had created on her own time; as a result, Plaintiff had to go home to retrieve the form. (Villar Decl. ¶ 16.)

Plaintiff also alleges that after Yanosik returned, he significantly reduced her overtime. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 60.) According to Plaintiffs pay stubs, the only overtime she received between May 2008 and October 2008 was approximately twenty-nine hours earned between April 27, 2008 and May 10, 2008. (Avallone Decl. Ex. FFF.) Plaintiff does not provide evidence of what other BMS lieutenants earned in overtime between May 2008 and October 2008. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 60.) The Parties agree that Plaintiff was the third highest overtime earner among the five lieutenants assigned to BMS from January 2007 through July 2008, but, as Plaintiff notes, Yanosik only became her supervisor in May 2008. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 83; PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 83; see Schowen-gerdt Decl. Ex. M.)

D. Plaintiffs Department Trial and Termination.

Between mid-2004 and July 2008, Plaintiff was the subject of an investigation by NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau. (Johnson Dep.) 11:4-14, 20:5-8, 41:3-7.) After Plaintiff was charged with wrongfully divulging official Department business with a person known to the Department in July 2004, IAB.focused its investigation on substantiating that Charge and on determining .whether any additional Charges and Specifications should be added. (Johnson Dep. 19:22-20:22, 40:21-24; Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. E, at DOA0150.) In particular, IAB investigators sought to determine whether Plaintiff ,was involved in money laundering related to her brothers’ crimes. (Johnson Dep. 20:9-22, 26:14-23.) In July 2004, McGovern, a lieutenant in the IAB, informed the U.S. Postal Investigation Service that its investigation had “disclosed that [Plaintiff] is engaged in money laundering activity.” (Avallone Decl. Ex. RRR.) In July 2007, IAB investigators met with Assistant U.S. Attorney Elaine Bañar regarding their money laundering investigation, and Bañar informed them that the evidence was insufficient for her office to charge Plaintiff with money laundering. (Johnson Dep. 24:7-25:4.) Kesha Johnson, the lead IAB investigator at that time, also did not think that Plaintiff should be prosecuted for money laundering. (Johnson Dep. 38:14-18.) Ultimately, IAB decided they “couldn’t prove anything was wrong with [Plaintiffs] financial reports” and did not issue a money laundering Charge against Plaintiff. (Johnson Dep. 33:2-6)) IAB also decided not to issue any additional Charges against Plaintiff, and IAB found that no additional violations or allegations against Plaintiff were substantiated. (Johnson Dep. 40:21-41:21, 43:9-17.)

On July 14 and July 16, 2008, the NYPD held an administrative trial regarding the July 15, 2004 Charge. (Defs/ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 63; PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 63; Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. G, at DOA00.04.) The trial was adjudicated by' Assistant Deputy. Commissioner of Trials David Weisel, and Plaintiff was represented ’ by-counsel. (Defs/ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 63-64.) Bé-fore concluding the trial on July 16, 2008, Commissioner Weisel informed Plaintiff that should he find her guilty, he would review her employment record in connection with recommending a penalty to the Police Commissioner; he also informed Plaintiff that she had a right to review her employment records before he looked at them and to submit additional materials to the Court before Commissioner Weisel made his' penalty determination. (Aval-lone Decl. Ex. E.) -

Accordingly, on. July 17, 2008, Plaintiff requested her Central Personnel Index (“CPI”), or .disciplinary record, from the NYPD. (Avallone Deck Ex. I.) The NYPD gave Plaintiff a CPI dated July 29, 2008 which stated, at the bottom, “Number of Event Records: 30.” (Avallone Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. I.) However, Plaintiff alleges that Commissioner Weisel received a different version of her CPI, produced during discovery, which was also dated July 29, 2008. (Avallone Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. I, Ex. J, at IAB 0473.) This second CPI, which stated “Number of Event Records: 31” at the bottom, included the following information not on the CPI given to Plaintiff:

INTERNAL INVESTIGATION - ALLEGATION: ASSOCIATION NARCOTICS ' (FAMILY MEMBER)

DATE: 4/20/2004 DISPOSITION: SUBSTANTIATED

ALLEGATION: COMPUTER MISUSE

DISPOSITION: UNSUBSTANTIATED

ALLEGATION: SELL/DISCLOSE CONF. INFO

DISPOSITION: SUBSTANTIATED

CASE CLOSED* *IAB GRP# 53* * 5/28/08

* * * * CHARGES & SPEC ISSUED (ME)

(Avallone Decl. Ex. J, at IAB 0473;. compare with Avallone Decl. Ex. I, at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that this second CPI was falsified and that, had she been provided with a copy of it at the time she received the first CPI, she would have had the opportunity to inform Commissioner Weis-el that the information in the second CPI was false. (Villar Decl. ¶ 17.)

On October 6, 2008, Commissioner Weis-el issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that Plaintiff be found guilty of the Charge and terminated. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 67.) Plaintiffs counsel submitted a Fogel letter to the Police Commissioner on October 24, 2008, objecting to Commissioner Weisel’s Report and Recommendation and submitting new evidence. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 68; Pl/s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 68.) Commissioner Weisel permitted the reopening of the trial and on December 9, 2008 admitted into evidence a tape that Plaintiff’s counsel had submitted with its Fogel letter. (Avallone Decl. Ex. JJ; Avallone Decl. Ex. LL, at 1-2.) On January 22, 2009, Commissioner Weisel issued a Supplemental Decision explaining that the new evidence would not have changed the outcome of the trial. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 68; Avallone Decl. Ex. LL, at 1; Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. I.) Plaintiffs counsel submitted a second Fo-gel letter in opposition to the Supplemental Decision on February 5, 2009. (Avallone Decl. Ex. LL.) On February 6, 2009, Commissioner Weisel issued his Final Decision, which found Plaintiff guilty and recommended Plaintiffs termination. (Schowen-gerdt Decl. Ex. G, at DOA0003-04, DOA0054.) The Decision’s last paragraph stated,

Essentially, this is a case in which, whatever her level of knowledge or intention, a Lieutenant of this Department called a drug trafficker (Alberto, whose criminal case resulted in ‘a most favorable plea’ according to the Respondent’s counsel) with information about a court-authorized wiretap in a related drug case. She then discussed with that trafficker the implications of a long-term police investigation involving a wiretap. Under these circumstances, the Court can recommend no other penalty but termination.

(Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. G, at DOA0054.) Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly approved the disposition and recommended penalty on April 7, 2009, and Plaintiff was dismissed from the NYPD effective April 13, 2009. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 75; Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. B.)

Plaintiff argues that she received a significantly harsher punishment than ■ similarly situated male comparators. (Villar Decl. ¶¶ 9, 11.) First, ' she notes that NYPD issued McKoy, who is male, a Letter of Instruction for logging onto the department computer system,. obtaining information regarding Sergio, and then relaying that information to Plaintiff on July 6, 2004; however, NYPD did not formally issue a Charge against McKoy. (PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 6; Avallone Decl. Ex. G.) She also points to five male NYPD members who were found guilty of impeding, preventing, or interfering with an official department investigation but received lesser penalties. (Villar Decl. ¶ 9(B)-(F).)

Plaintiff further notes that five male NYPD members found guilty of some variation of wrongfully divulging or disclosing official Department business received lesser penalties than she did. (Avallone Decl. Ex. UUU, at 1; Avallone Décl. Ex. VW, at 1-COM 0166; Villar Decl. W9(A), 11.) Of these five members, four were found guilty of divulging Depártment business to another NYPD member.' (Avallone Decl. Ex. UUU, at 1; Avallone Decl. Ex. VW, at COM 0012, COM 0022, COM 0166.) One of the five male NYPD members was found guilty in August 2010 for, “having been made aware of criminal allegation made against a civilian acquaintance, contacted said acquaintance and wrongfully divulged or discussed official* Department business without permission or' authority to do ■ so.” (Avallone Decl. Ex. VW, at COM 0068.) In particular, Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Trials John Grappone found that after the male comparator learned that his civilian friend was being investigated for rape allegations, he called his civilian friend, questioned him about whether he had raped someone, and, in doing so, “let[ ] [his friend] know that the Department was investigating allegations of a rape that [the friend] possibly committed.” (Schowengerdt Reply Decl. Ex. A, at COM 0127-28.) In determining the appropriate penalty, Commissioner Grappone noted, “Divulging Department information, by a member of service,- relating to criminal allegations to a possible person suspected of committing a crime is a very serious act of misconduct. The consequences of this act could lead to that person fleeing and possibly never be [sic] caught to face his crime.” {Id. at' COM 0136.) He recommended that the comparator be penalized by forfeiting twenty-five vacation days. (Id.) Commissioner Kelly disapproved the penalty because “[t]he overall nature of the misconduct committed by the Respondent,, who is a. ranking officer, warrants a more significant penalty”; ' accordingly, he increased the penalty to a forfeiture of thirty-five vacation days. (Avallone Decl. Ex. VW, at COM 0060.)

E. Alleged Denial of Promotions

Plaintiff was promoted to Sergeant in May 2000 and was promoted to Lieutenant in 2003, (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 76-77.) In June 2007, Plaintiff became eligible for promotion to Captain. {Id. - ¶ 78.) The Cáptain’s exam list on which Plaintiffs name appeared as eligible for promotion expired on June 27, 2008. {Id.) NYPD’s written policy stated that NYPD members not on full duty status would not be considered for promotion, and Plaintiff admits that she was not eligible for promotion because of her modified duty status. (Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. P; see also. Pl.’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 79-80.) Plaintiff, however, argues that NYPD failed to bring Plaintiff to trial on the July 2004 Charge in a-speedy manner, and that this failure resulted in her remaining on modified duty and not being promoted. (PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 79.)

F. Plaintiffs Complaints of Discrimination and Defendants’ Allegedly Retaliatory Response

On June 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the NYPD Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (“OEEO”), alleging that Yanosik had discriminated against her on the basis of her race and' sex and had retaliated against her because she had reported wrongdoing to other units. (Defs.’ 5611 Stmt. ¶ 81; Schowengerdt Deck Ex. J, at EE0042.) In addition, although in February 2008 Meyer had given Plaintiff an evaluation score of “4” for the period of January 2007 to January 2008, in July 2008, Yanosik changed Plaintiffs evaluation score for the January 2007 to January 2008 period to a “3.” (PL’S 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 65-67.) Plaintiff filed an Appeal to the Facilities Management Division on July 28, 2008, and succeeded in keeping her evaluation score at “4.” (Compl. ¶ 58; Avallone Decl. Ex. KKK.) On July 29,2008, Yanosik reassigned Plaintiff from her private office to the front desk, which was very busy and loud, and where she was allegedly required to do work entirely by herself that had previously been handled by multiple NYPD members. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶.62-64,70-71.)

On August 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed another OEEO Complaint alleging .that Yanosik had retaliated against her for filing the previous OEEO Complaint. (PL’s ' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 72.) Plaintiff alleges that at some point after August 4, 2008, Yanosik denied her request to attend a training mandatory for Plaintiff due to her status as a Command Safety Officer. (Villar Decl. ¶ 12; see Avallone Decl. Ex. MMM, .at 3 (Plaintiffs letter to .Yanosik dated August 1, 2008 discussing mandatory training for new position but neither requesting training nor claiming that Yanosik had denied a request to attend training); Avallone Decl. Ex. OOO, at 3 (same, in August 4, 2008 letter from Plaintiff to Deputy Commissioner Neldra Zeigler, OEEO).) Plaintiff alleges that Captain Jesus Tellado told ,her that Yanosik denied her request because he wanted to “teach [her] not to put thipgs in writing” and “show [her] who the boss was.” (Villar Decl. ¶ 12.) However, the record does not include a Declaration or Deposition from Tellado. (See generally Avallone Decl.; Schowengerdt Decl.)

After investigating Plaintiffs June 2008 Complaint, the OEEO found in September 2008 that Plaintiffs .Complaint did not rise to the level of a violation of Title VII or state or local law, and, referred her Complaint to the IAB. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 82; Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. K.) On October 1, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a Complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Budget and Management alleging that Yanosik had created a hostile work environment; she did not allege that the hostile work environment was related to her race, sex, or filing of discrimination complaints. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 73; Avallone Decl. Ex. PPP.)

On October 6, 2008, the date that Commissioner Weisel issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff be found guilty and terminated, Plaintiff was suspended and placed on the Military and Extended Sick Desk; she remained there until her termination on April 8, 2009. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶67; Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 74.) Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the New York State Division of Human Rights (“SDHR”). on November 26, 2008, alleging discrimination on the basis of race and sex and retaliation. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 85; Avallone Decl. Ex. B.) Plaintiff filed the instant action'on August 21, 2009.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment

A court should grant summary judgment when there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lerner, 416 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir.2005). Genuine issues of material fact cannot be created by eonclusory allegations. Victor v. Milicevic, 361 Fed.Appx. 212, 214 (2d Cir.2010): Summary judgment is appropriate only when, after drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of a non-niovant, no reasonable juror could find in favor of that party. Melendez v. Mitchell, 394 Fed.Appx. 739, 740 (2d Cir.2010).

In assessing when summary judgment should be granted, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs . position , will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the, plaintiff.” Id. (citation omitted). The non-movant may not rely upon speculation or conjecture to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Burgess v. Fairport Cent. Sch. Dist., 371 Fed.Appx. 140, 141 (2d Cir.2010). Instead, when the moving party has documented particular facts in the record, “the opposing party must come forward with specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact.” FDIC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 607 F.3d 288, 292 (2d Cir.2010). Establishing such evidence requires going beyond the allegations of the pleadings, as the moment has arrived “to put up or shut up.”' Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Thus, unsupported allegations in the pleadings cannot create a material issue of fact. Id.

B. Disparate Treatment Based on Race and Sex

1. Title VII and NYSHRL Claims

Courts in this Circuit analyze Title VII and NYSHRL claims of employment discrimination according to the three-stage, burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Simmons v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 508 Fed.Appx. 10, 12 (2d Cir.2013). Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff bears the initial, de minimis burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Beyer v. Cnty. of Nassau, 524 F.3d 160, 163 (2d Cir.2008). To make out a prima facie case, a plaintiff must demonstrate, through direct or circumstantial evidence, that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered from an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130, 138 (2d Cir.2008).

A plaintiff who makes out a prima fa-cie case establishes a presumption of discrimination, at which point the burden of production shifts to the defendant to articulate a “legitimate, non-discriminatory reason” 'for the challenged conduct. Woodman v. WWOR-TV, Inc., 411 F.3d 69, 76 (2d Cir.2005) (citation omitted). If the defendant produces such a reason, the plaintiff must then, without the benefit of the presumption of discrimination, “raise[] sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the [adverse employment action] was based, at least in part,” on discrimination. Holcomb, 521 F.3d at 141. Typically, plaintiffs who lack direct evidence of discrimination argue that the employer’s stated reason for the challenged conduct is pre-textual. Id. “[I]n many cases, a showing of pretext, when combined with a prima facie case of discrimination, will be enough to permit a rational finder of fact to decide that the decision was motivated by an improper motive.” Id. However, a showing of pretext is not required. Id. at 141-42. Instead, a plaintiff “alleging that an employment decision was motivated both by legitimate and illegitimate reasons may establish that the ‘impermissible factor was a motivating factor, without proving that the employer’s proffered explanation was not some part of the employer’s motivation.’ ” Id. at 142.

Title VII’s statute of limitations bars claims based on events occurring more than 300 days prior to filing a charge of discrimination with a state or local employment agency. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Plaintiff filed an administrative Complaint with the SDHR and EEOC on November 26, 2008. (Avallone Decl. Ex. B.) Accordingly, only those incidents that occurred on or after January 31, 2008 are actionable under Title VII. Patterson v. Cnty. of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 220 (2d Cir.2004) (noting that Title VII precludes recovery for discrete discriminatory acts that occurred outside the statutory time period even if other acts occurred within the time period). Discrimination claims under the NYSHRL are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Lange v. Town of Monroe, 213 F.Supp.2d 411, 418 (S.D.N.Y.2002). As this ‘ action was brought on August 21, 2009, only those incidents occurring on or after August 21, 2006 are actionable under the NYSHRL. Nonetheless, earlier incidents may be cited as background evidence in support of a timely Title VII or NYSHRL claim. Anderson v. Nassau Cnty. Dep’t of Corrs., 558 F.Supp.2d 283, 299 (E.D.N.Y.2008).

Villar alleges that NYPD violated Title VII and the NYSHRL by proffering disciplinary charges against her, prosecuting those charges, finding her guilty of those charges, terminating her, failing to promote her, and denying her overtime.

Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination as to her claim that the proffering of disciplinary charges against her constituted race- and/or sex-based discrimination, because she has not raised an issue of material fact as to whether the proffering of charges occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. “A showing of disparate treatment — that is, a showing that an employer treated plaintiff ‘less favorably than a similarly situated employee outside his protected group’ — is a recognized method of raising an inference of discrimination for the purposes of making out a prima facie case.” Ruiz v. Cnty. of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486, 493 (2d Cir.2010) (citation omitted). “An employee is similarly situated to co-employees if they were (1) ‘subject to the same performance evaluation and discipline standards’ and (2) ‘engaged in comparable conduct.’” Id. at 493-94 (citation omitted). “The standard for comparing conduct requires a reasonably close resemblance of the facts and circumstances of plaintiff’s and comparator’s cases, rather than a showing that both cases are identical.” Id. at 494 (citation and alteration omitted). “In other words, the comparator must be similarly situated to the plaintiff ‘in all material respects.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). Although “[t]he question of whether two employees are similarly situated is generally a triable issue for the fact-finder[,] ... a plaintiff must offer sufficient ’ evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that -there was indeed disparate treatment of similarly situated employees.” Beachum v. AWISCO N.Y., 785 F.Supp.2d 84, 94 (S.D.N.Y.2011).

Here, Plaintiff argues that the fact that McKoy was never charged with divulging confidential information to Plaintiff raises an inference of discrimination. (PL’s Opp’n 19.) Plaintiff points to no evidence in the record indicating McKoy’s face, and accordingly fails to raise an inference of race discrimination on that basis. (See supra n. 3.) Defendants’ décision not to charge McKoy’ also does not raise an inference of sex discrimination, because he is not similarly situated to Plaintiff in all material respects. While Plaintiff shared official NYPD information with a civilian, McKoy shared that information with a higher-ranked member of the NYPD. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 23; Villar Dep. 71:19-72:8.) The facts and circumstances of this conduct are materially distinct. NYPD has an understandably greater interest in deterring NYPD members from sharing information with non-NYPD civilians than "in deterring them from sharing information with other NYPD members. No reasonable juror, reviewing the evidence in the record, could find Plaintiff’s conduct to have been comparable to McKoy’s. See, e.g., Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560, 568 (2d Cir.2000) (finding as a matter of law that plaintiff who engaged in a physical fight was not similarly situated to coworkers whose offensive behavior involved words only); Humphreys v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., No. 10 Civ. 4737, 2012 WL 5289566, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2012) (finding as a matter of law that plaintiff was not similarly-situated to comparator because, inter alia, plaintiff had violated harassment policy by playing offensive video for his subordinates while comparator had violated harassment policy by failing to stop plaintiff from showing offensive video). No other eyi-dence in the record -suffices to raise an inference of race-based or. sex-based discrimination as to the promulgation of the charges against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has also failed to establish a prima facie case as to whether NYPD discriminated against her by prosecuting her and finding her guilty of the above charge. Plaintiff points to no similarly situated employees who were charged with comparable conduct but not prosecuted similarly or found guilty. Although Plaintiff argues that she is not guilty of the Charge, “this Court is ‘not interested in the truth of the allegations against [Pjlain-tiff but in what ‘motivated the employer.’ ” Del Pozo v. Bellevue Hosp. Ctr., No. 09 Civ. 4729, 2011 WL 797464, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011) (quoting McPherson v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 457 F.3d 211, 216 (2d Cir.2006)). Here, the record does not contain evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that the prosecution or finding of guilt occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of race- or sex-based discrimination.

However, Plaintiff has established a prima facie case as to whether NYPD terminated- her on the basis of her sex. Defendants do not contest that Plaintiff has met the first two prima fade prongs. (Defs.’ Mem. 7-9.) They argue that Plaintiff’s termination was merely “the application of the NYPD’s disciplinary policies,” which, “without more, does not constitute an adverse employment action.” (Id. at 8.) “A plaintiff sustains an adverse employment action if he or she endures a materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment.” Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87, 90 (2d Cir.2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Examples of materially adverse changes include' termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices unique to a particular situation.” Id. (citation omitted).. Although.the Second Circuit has stated that “an employee does not suffer a materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment where the employer merely enforces its preexisting disciplinary policies in a reasonable manner,” id. at 91, it has applied fhis dicta only in cases of suspension with paid leave. See Brown v. City of Syracuse, 673 F.3d 141, 151 (2d Cir.2012); Joseph, 465 F.3d at 90-91. Defendants have cited no case law, nor is the Court aware of any, applying this dicta to cases of termination. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs termination constitutes ah adverse employment action.

Plaintiff has also established that her termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of sex-based discrimination. The record contains evidence that a male lieutenant subject to the same performance evaluation and discipline standards engaged in conduct comparable to-Plaintiffs but received a far less harsh penalty. (Compare Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. G, with Schowengerdt Reply Decl. Ex. A.) In August 2010, Commissioner Grappone found the male lieutenant guilty of, “having been made aware of criminal allegation made against a civilian acquaintance, contact[ing] said acquaintance and wrongfully divulg[ing] or discussing] official Department business without permission or authority to do so.” (Schowengerdt Reply Decl. Ex. A, at COM 0063.) According to Commissioner Grap-pone, the male lieutenant, after learning from a co-worker that .his civilian friend was being investigated for rape allegations, called his civilian friend, told the friend about his earlier conversation with his co-worker, and asked the friend whether he had raped someone. (Id. at COM 0127.) The civilian friend subsequently called the lieutenant’s co-worker and told him he “didn’t rape no girl.” (Id. at COM 0126.) Commissioner Grappone found that the male lieutenant’s call to his friend “let[] [the friend] know that the Department was investigating allegations of a rape that [the friend] possibly committed.” (Id. at COM 0127-28.)

A reasonable juror could find there to be no material, difference between Plaintiffs conduct and the conduct of the male lieutenant, as described by the Assistant Deputy Commissioners. adjudicating their trials. Both Plaintiff and the .male lieutenant provided information to civilians about official NYPD investigations. (Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. .G, at DOA0044-DOA0052; Schowengerdt Reply Decl. Ex. A, at COM0125-COM0128.) Arguably, Plaintiffs conduct was less problematic than the male lieutenant’s; Commissioner Weisel did not find, that Plaintiff knew Alberto was involved in narcotics trafficking or was the subject of the NYPD’s narcotics investigation, whereas Commissioner Grappone found that the male lieutenant knew that the civilian he contacted was the subject of the NYPD’s rape investigation and “was in fact letting him know that the Department was investigating allegations of a rape that [he] possibly committed.” (Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. G, at DOA0044-DOA0052; Schowengerdt Reply Deck Ex. A, at COM0127-COM0128.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff is not. similarly situated to the male lieutenant because she sought out the information she gave to Alberto whereas the male lieutenant’s co-worker told him about the rape investigation without any prompting by the lieutenant. (Defs.’ Reply Mem. L. Supp. Mot. Summ. J.. (“Defs.’ Reply”) 7; Schowengerdt Deck Ex. G, at DQA0047; Schowengerdt Reply Deck Ex. A, at COM0126-COM0127:) The Court notes, however, that the Charge against Plaintiff and the male lieutenant was not seeking information about- official Department business but “divulg[ing] or discussing] official Department business” wrongfully and without authorization. (Schowengerdt Deck Ex. G, at DOA0004; Schowengerdt Reply Deck Ex. A, at COM0060.) Defendants also argue that'.“according to the findings at the officer’s departmental trial,” the male lieutenant “did not call his friend with the purpose of disclosing” information about the rape investigation. (Defs.’ Reply 7.) However, Defendants do not support- this argument, instead citing to evidence that the male lieutenant’s disclosure was purposeful. - (See id: (citing Schowengerdt Reply Deck Ex. A, at COM0124-COM0128, COM 0136).) Defendants also, argue that Plaintiffs conduct, .is distinct from, the male lieutenant’s because she “sought out information that could benefit her own private interests and disclosed that information to family members in furtherance of those interests.” (Id.) Defendants do not make clear what “private interests” they are discussing and cite to- no evidence in support of this argument. (See id.) To the extent Defendants are implying that Plaintiff was involved in her brothers’ narcotics activities, the record makes clear that IAB declined to charge Plaintiff with money laundering or other involvement and instead found that no charges other than the disclosure charge were substantiated. (Johnson Dep. 40:21-41:21, 43:9-17.) In addition, the Memorandum from the male lieutenant’s trial indicates that he may have had his “own private interests” in contacting his friend; prior to the male lieutenant contacting his friend, the male .lieutenant’s co-worker told him that the NYPD was' investigating either the male lieutenant or his friend for rape. (Schowengerdt Reply Deck Ex. A, at COM0127.)

Here, a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff and the male lieutenant were similarly situated in all material respects and that the discrepancy between their penalties — termination for the Plaintiff and a forfeiture of 35 vacation days for the male lieutenant — constitutes disparate treats ment. See Beachum, 785 F.Supp.2d at 94 (“The question of whether two employees are similarly situated is generally a triable issue for the factfinder.”); (Schowengerdt Deck Ex. G, at DOA0054; Schowengerdt Reply Deck Ex. A, at COM0060.). Because the lieutenant is a man and therefore not in Plaintiff’s protected - class, Plaintiff has raised an inference of sex-based discrimination sufficient to establish a prima facie case. See Ruiz, 609 F.3d at 493.- However, as neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have identified the race of the male lieutenant, the same evidence would not permit an inference of race discrimination. (See Avallone Deck Ex. VW, at 1, COM0059-COM0064; Schowengerdt Reply Deck Ex. A; Villar Deck ¶ 11; see also Defs.’ Reply 6.) Nor does the record contain other evidence sufficient to raise an inference of race discrimination as to Plaintiffs termination.

As Defendants state, Commissioner Weisél’s findings and recommendation of termination constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Plaintiffs termination. (Defs.’ Mem. 9.) However, Plaintiff has raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether this reason is pretextual. Departures from procedural regularity can be evidence of pretext. Bagley v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 10 Civ. 1592, 2012 WL 2866266, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2012) (citing cases) (“Although ‘violation of an organization’s internal procedures alone is insufficient to create an inference of discrimination ..., failure to follow internal procedures can be evidence of pretext.’ ”) (citation and alterations omitted); see also Greenway v. Buffalo Hilton Hotel, 143 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir.1998) (“The evidence of [defendant's inconsistent application of its disciplinary policy was sufficient for the jury to have decided properly that the employer’s defense was simply a pretext for discrimination.”); Stern v. Trs. of Columbia Univ., 131 F.3d 305, 313 (2d Cir.1997) (“[Departures from procedural regularity ... can raise a question as to the good faith of the process where the departure may reasonably affect the decision.”) (citation omitted),

Here, Plaintiff has marshaled evidence that Defendants’ process for terminating her departed from procedural regularity. The record indicates that the normal procedure for determining the penalty for an NYPD member found guilty at trial required the Assistant Deputy Commissioner who adjudicated the trial to review the member’s disciplinary record, and to provide the member with “the right to review these same records before” the Assistant Deputy Commissioner reviewed them. (Avallone Decl. Ex. K (emphasis- added).) However, although Plaintiff exercised her right to review her disciplinary record (Avallone Decl. Ex. I, at 1), a reasonable juror could find that she received a different version of her CPI than the CPI reviewed by Commissioner Weisel. (Compare id. at 4, with Avallone Decl. Ex. J, at IAB0473.) The CPI that Weisel allegedly reviewed had thirty-one event records; stated that NYPD had conducted an internal investigation regarding the allegation of “ASSOCIATION: ..NARCOTICS (FAMILY MEMBER),” and listed .the disposition of that allegation as “SUBSTANTIATED.” (Avallone Decl. Ex. J, at IAB0473.) However, the CPI that Plaintiff allegedly reviewed had thirty event records and did not state that NYPD had conducted, or substantiated an internal investigation regarding' “ASSOCIATION: NARCOTICS (FAMILY MEMBER).” (Avallone Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. I, at 4.) Accordingly, Plaintiff did not have the opportunity to contest the accuracy of the CPI that Weisel reviewed. , (Villar Decl. ¶ 17.) Such an opportunity could have been particularly useful here, where the record indicates that IAB never substantiated any violations ,or allegations against Plaintiff other than the Charge for disclosure of official Department business. (Johnson Dep. 41:19-21, 43:9-17.)

In addition, “[a] showing that similarly situated employees belonging to a different [protected class] received more favorable treatment, can also serve as evidence that the employer’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse job action was a pretext for ... discrimination.” Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 43 (2d Cir.2000); see also Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93, 108 (2d Cir.2010) (“[T]he fact that other younger employees were not disciplined for violating numerous policies is both pri-ma facie evidence of discrimination (i.e., it suggests that [Plaintiff] may have been treated differently from similarly situated coworkers), and evidence, that the reasons given by [Defendant] for .firing [Plaintiff] were pretextual,”).

Here] the stark contrast between the penalties administered to Plaintiff and the similarly situated male lieutenant for comparable conduct is strong evidence- that Defendants’ stated rationale is pretextual. The male lieutenant was found guilty of four separate specifications, including one specification comparable to Plaintiffs conduct. (Schowengerdt Reply Decl. Ex.- A, at COM0059-60.) Commissioner Grappone found that" the male lieutenant engaged in a “very serious act of misconduct” and that the “consequences of this act could lead to [the subject of an investigation] fleeing and possibly never be [sic] caught to face his crime.”- (Id.) The appropriate penalty for this “very serious act of misconduct” was, according to- Commissioner Grappone, a forfeiture of twenty-five vacation days;- to Commissioner Kelly, the appropriate penalty was a forfeiture of thirty-five vacation days. (Id. at COM0060, COM0136.) Although a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiffs conduct was comparably serious or less serious than the male lieutenant’s, Plaintiff was terminated. The-evidence that Plaintiff was administered a significantly harsher penalty than a similarly situated male comparator, in combination with evidence of procedural irregularities in the determination of her penalty, is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Defendants’ stated, rationale is pretextual. See Graham, 230 F.3d at 43; Stern, 131 F.3d at 313.

“[E]vidence satisfying the . minimal McDonnell Douglas prima facie case, coupled with evidence of falsity of the employer’s explanation, may or may not be sufficient to sustain a finding of discrimination.” James v. N.Y. Racing Ass’n, 233 F.3d 149, 156-57 (2d Cir.2000). “[T]he way to tell whether a plaintiffs case is sufficient to sustain a verdict is to analyze the particular evidence to determine whether it reasonably supports an inference of the facts plaintiff must prove— particularly discrimination.” Id. at 157. “The relevant factors identified by the Supreme Court ‘include the strength of the plaintiffs prima facie case, the. probative value of the proof that the employer’s explanation is false, and any other evidence that supports or undermines the employer’s case.’ ” Id. at 156 (quoting Reeves v, Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148-49, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000)) (alterations omitted).

Here, Plaintiffs prima facie case is strong, and she provides probative evidence of pretext in Defendants’ rationale. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs admission that she disclosed NYPD information to Alberto, in combination with Commissioner Weisel’s finding that she was guilty of disclosing official NYPD information to Alberto, undermines her arguments. (Defs-.’ Mem. 9-10.) However, the issue before the Court on this claim is not whether Plaintiff was guilty of disclosing official NYPD -information, but whether her termination was motivated, even in part, by her sex. The evidence that a similarly situated male lieutenant who engaged in comparable or worse conduct than Plaintiff received a much lighter penalty, in combination with the evidence that Defendants departed from procedural regularity by providing Commissioner Weisel with an inaccurate and version of Plaintiffs disciplinary record than they provid: ed to Plaintiff, is legally sufficient for- a reasonable jury to find that Defendants terminated Plaintiff in part on the basis of her sex. See Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834, 847 (2d Cir.2013) (holding that plaintiffs prima facie case plus evidence of pretext sufficed to permit reasonable juror to infer that retaliation was but-for cause of adverse action). Accordingly, summary judgment is inappropriate on this claim. See James v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., No. 12 Civ. 8762, 2014 WL 1485393, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2014) (“[Cjourts must be ‘particularly cautious about granting summary judgment to an employer in a discrimination case when the employer’s intent is in question.’ ”) (quoting Schwapp v. Town of Avon, 118 F.3d 106,110 (2d Cir.1997)).

Next, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants denied her promotions on the bases of her race and sex. Plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on this claim because she has not raised an issue of material fact as to whether the alleged promotion, denial occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Plaintiff provides no evidence that an individual outside of her protected class was promoted while on modified duty, and the record is devoid of other evidence on which a reasonable juror might conclude that Plaintiff was not promoted based on her race or sex.

Even assuming Plaintiff, established a prima fade case of discrimination, Defendants have set forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting her: NYPD policy prohibited members not on full duty status from being considered for promotion, and Plaintiff was not on full duty status during the time she elaims she was denied promotions.. (Defs.’ Mem. ,12.) Plaintiff has.not raised an issue of fact as -to whether this rationale was pretextual. The. record shows that NYPD’s written policy stated that NYPD members not on.full duty status would not be considered for .promotion, and Plaintiff admits that her modified duty status made her ineligible for promotion. (Schowen-gerdt Decl, Ex. P; see also Pl.’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1..Stmt,. ¶¶,79-80.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ failure to bring her to trial in a speedy manner resulted in her remaining .on modified duty for an unnecessarily lengthy period of time. (PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶79.) However, the record indicates that NYPD’s investigation of Plaintiff, was complex and that IAB was investigating Plaintiff until approximately July 2008, the month in which Plaintiffs trial began., (Johnson Dep. 16:17-25:4, 39:7-41:7; Schowengerdt Decl. Ex. G, at DOA0004.) The. length of Defendants’ investigation and the evidence in the remainder of the record is insufficient to show that Defendants’ rationale is pretex-tual.

Next, Plaintiff contends that Defendants denied her overtime opportunities based on her sex and race. Plaintiff argues that her allegations of overtime denials occurring between November 2004 and August 2006 are timely pursuant to the continuing violation doctrine, because they occurred pursuant to a practice and policy of discrimination. (PL’s Opp’n 8-9.) However, Plaintiff , cites to Second Circuit .case law issued prior to the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Nat’l R.R. Passenger Cprp. v. Mprgan, in which the Supreme Court held that “discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges.” 536 U.S. 101, 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002). In considering whether plaintiffs may apply the continuing violations doctrine to discrete acts occurring pursuant to a policy of discrimination, the Second Circuit subsequently held that “[discrete acts ..., which fall outside the limitations period, cannot be brought within it, even when undertaken pursuant to a general policy that results in other discrete acts occurring within the limitations period.” Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135, 157 (2d Cir.2012). Plaintiffs allegations of overtime violations occurring between November 2004 and August 2006 constitute discrete- acts. See, e.g., Consoli v. St. Mary Home/Mercy Cmty. Health, No. 13 Civ. 1791, 2014 WL 3849978, at *4 (D.Conn. Aug. 5, 2014) (holding that plaintiffs allegations related to denial of overtime were discrete acts, time-barred, and not individually actionable); Anderson v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., No. 12 Civ. 4064, 2013 WL 5229790, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2013) (same), report and recommendation adopted by 2013 WL 5229790, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2013); Stewart v. City of New York, No. 11 Civ. 6935, 2012 WL 2849779, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2012) (“[T]he failure to give benefits [such as overtime] is generally a discrete act”). Accordingly, the alleged overtime denials occurring between November 2004 to August 2006 cannot be brought within the statute of limitations pursuant to a continuing violations theory and are time-barred.

Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination as to the alleged overtime denials occurring between May 2008 and October 2008, because the record does not permit a reasonable juror to find that they occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Although the record indicates that Plaintiffs overtime earnings decreased after Yanosik returned in May 2008, it does not contain evidence of what other BMS lieutenants earned in overtime between May 2008 and October 2008. {See PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶60.) The record indicates that Plaintiff was the third highest overtime earner among the five BMS lieutenants from January 2007 through July 2008. (Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶83; PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶83.) But that information does not indicate whether other lieutenants’ overtime earnings decreased, increased, or stayed the same after Yanosik’s return. This evidence, in combination with the evidence in the remainder of the record, is not sufficient to raise an inference of race or sex discrimination.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Title VII and NYSHRL disparate treatment claims regarding the proffering of disciplinary charges against Plaintiff, prosecution of those charges, finding of guilt on those charges, failure to promote, and denial of overtime. Defendants’ Motion is also GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Title VII and NYSHRL race-based disparate treatment claims regarding her termination. However, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiffs Title VII and NYSHRL sex-based disparate treatment claims regarding her termination.

2. NYCHRL Claims

The NYCHRL ‘“explicitly requires an independent liberal construction analysis in all circumstances,’ an analysis that ‘must be targeted to understanding and fulfilling what the statute characterizes as the City HRL’s uniquely broad and remedial purposes, which go beyond those of counterpart state or federal civil rights laws.’ ” Bennett v. Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 29, 34, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112 (N.Y.App.Div.2011) (citation omitted); see also Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102, 109 (2d Cir.2013) (“[C]ourts must analyze NYCHRL claims separately and independently from any federal and state law claims, construing the NYCHRL’s provisions ‘broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible.’ ”) (citation omitted).

For an NYCHRL claim to survive a summaiy judgment motion,

the plaintiff need only show that her employer treated her less well, at least in part for a discriminatory reason. The employer may present evidence of its legitimate, non-discriminatory motives to show the conduct was not caused by discrimination, but it is entitled to summary judgment on this basis only if the record establishes as a matter of law that “discrimination play[ed] no role” in its actions.

Mihalik, 715 F.3d at 110 n. 8.(citation omitted). “[S]ummary judgment dismissing a claim under the NYCHRL should be granted only if ‘no jury could find defendant liable under any of the evidentiary routes — McDonnell Douglas, mixed motive, direct evidence, or some combination thereof.’” Melman v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 98 A.D.3d 107, 113, 946 N.Y.S.2d 27 (N.Y.App.Div.2012) (citation omitted). However, these evidentiary routes are not applied to Title VII and NYCHRL claims in identical ways. For instance, “to make out the third prong of a prima facie case of discrimination under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must simply show that she was treated differently from others in a way that was more than trivial, insubstantial, or petty.” Williams v. Regus Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 836 F.Supp.2d 159, 173 (S.D.N.Y.2011); see also Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, No. 08 Civ. 9503, 2012 WL 393008, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2012) (NYCHRL plaintiff “does not need to demonstrate that he was subject to a materially adverse employment action”), adopted by 2012 WL 1079964 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012), aff'd by 518 Fed.Appx. 49 (2d Cir.2013).

A three-year statute of limitations applies to NYCHRL claims. N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8-502(d); see Odom v. Doar, 497 Fed.Appx. 88, 89 (2d Cir.2012). However, pursuant to the continuing violations doctrine as applied to the NYCHRL, “otherwise time-barred discrete acts can be considered timely where -specific and related instances of discrimination are permitted by the employer to continue unrem-edied for so long as to amount to a discriminatory policy or practice.” Morgan v. N.Y. State Attorney Gen’s Office, No. 11 Civ. 9389, 2013 WL 491525, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2013) (citation and alteration omitted); see also Fleming v. Max-Mara USA, Inc., 644 F.Supp.2d 247, 269 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (“A continuing violation may be found where there is proof of specific ongoing discriminatory policies or practices — ”) (citation and alteration omitted).

Here, Villar’s disparate treatment claim regarding the alleged denial of overtime between November 2004 and-August 2006 is time-barred because the alleged denials fall outside NYCHRL’s statute of limitations, and the record fails to show that they were part of a discriminatory policy or practice. Aside from her conclu-sory allegations, Plaintiff -has presented no evidence that the alleged ’overtime denials were pursuant to a specific ongoing race— or sex-based discriminatory policy or practice by NYPD, or that NYPD permitted specific and related overtime denials to continue unremedied in a manner that amounted to a policy of discrimination on the basis of race or sex. {See generally PL’s Resp. Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt.; PL!s 56.1 Stmt; PL’s Opp’n 10.) Accordingly, the November 2004 to August 2006 overtime denials are not part of a continuing violation and are time-barred.

The evidence discussed supra Part II.B.l and in the remainder of the record does not meet Plaintiffs burden to show that the City’s proffering of disciplinary charges, prosecution of those charges, finding of. guilt on those charges, alleged failure to promote, and alleged denial of overtime were “caused at least in part'by discriminatoiy ,.. motives.” Mihalik, 715 F.3d at 113. Nor does the record permit a reasonable juror to find that Plaintiff was terminated at least in part because of her race. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment ' on Plaintiffs NYCHRL disparate treatment claims regarding the proffering of disciplinary charges against Plaintiff, prosecution of those charges, finding of guilt on those charges, fáilure to promote, and denial of overtime is GRANTED, as is Defendants?’ Motion as to Plaintiffs NYCHRL race-based disparate treatment claim regarding her termination. However, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiffs NYCHRL sex-based disparate treatment claim regarding her termination. -

C. Hostile Work Environment Claims ■

1. Title VII and NYSHRL Claims

“In order to survive summary judgment on a claim of hostile .work environment harassment, a plaintiff must produce evidence that ‘the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.’ ” Cruz, 202 F.3d at 570 (citation omitted). “A hostile working environment is shown when the incidents of harassment occur either in concert or with a regularity that can reasonably be termed pervasive.” Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712, 724 (2d Cir.2010) (citation omitted). It “can also be established through evidence of a single incident of harassment that is ‘extraordinarily severe.’ ” Id. (citations omitted). “A work environment will be considered hostile if a reasonable person would have found it to be so and if the plaintiff subjectively-' so perceived it.” Brennan v. Metro. Opera Ass’n, Inc., 192 F.3d 310, 318 (2d Cir.1999). “A- plaintiff must also demonstrate that she was subjected to the hostility-because of her membe