Paul v. Postgraduate Center for Mental Health (97 F. Supp. 3d 141, 2015)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SCANLON, VERA M., United States Magistrate Judge.

Pro se Plaintiff Jean Robert Paul (“Plaintiff’) filed this action against Defendant Postgraduate Center for Mental Health (“Defendant”). Docket No. 1. Plaintiff, who is of Haitian descent and was 53 years of age when Defendant hired him in March 2009, alleges that Defendant harassed him and discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin and his age, and that in so doing, Defendant violated his rights under federal law, namely Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant retaliated against him for complaining about that harassment and discrimination, again in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. Id.

Before this Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Docket Nos. 89-18. Plaintiff opposes, Docket Nos. 36, 44, and Defendant replies, Docket Nos. 15-16. For the reasons discussed below, I grant Defendant’s motion, and the Clerk of the Court is ordered to enter judgment for the Defendant and close this case.

I. Background

a. Underlying Facts

The following factual summary is compiled principally using Defendant’s Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts and supporting exhibits, as Plaintiff failed to submit a responsive Rule 56.1 Statement and exhibits of his own. Docket No. 18. Instead, Plaintiff has only submitted unsworn letters. Docket Nos. 31, 33, 44; see Russo v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 972 F.Supp.2d 429, 441 n. 12 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (disregarding three notarized but unsworn, letters as evidence on summary judgment, and listing cases). Thus, Plaintiff has admitted these facts. Local Civil Rule 56.1(c) (“Each numbered paragraph in the statement of material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted for purposes of the motion unless specifically controverted by a correspondingly numbered paragraph in the statement required to be served by the opposing party.”); Sutton v. City of Yonkers, No. 13 Civ. 801(GBD)(GWG), 2015 WL 876459, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015) (“[T]he non-moving party’s burden on summary judgment applies to pro se plaintiffs, notwithstanding the liberal construction of a pro se plaintiffs pleadings and the deference accorded to the non-moving party on summary judgment”). In recognition of Plaintiffs pro se status, I will from time to time cite to Plaintiffs Complaint and two letters he has submitted to the Court to identify places in which Plaintiffs allegations go beyond the existing record.' Docket No. 1 (Plaintiffs Complaint); Docket No. 31 (Plaintiffs summary letter to the Court); Docket No. 44 (Plaintiffs response in opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion).

i. Introductory Synopsis Of The Action And This Motion

Defendant has employed Plaintiff as a case manager at a residential facility for adults needing a variety of social and health services. Plaintiff and two other case managers tended to their clients out of a small shared office at that residential facility. Unfortunately, Plaintiff and his fellow case managers did not get along well and fought often. This action deals with those disagreements and related incidents. The most alarming of these alleged incidents was an alleged attempted shooting that Plaintiff may have experienced while on his lunch hour near the office. Other incidents involved more workaday matters such as Plaintiffs co-worker making personal telephone calls in the office and counseling one of Plaintiffs clients when she should have referred the matter to Plaintiff. There is also an allegation that Plaintiffs colleagues stated he could not advance in the office due to his national origin and age.

It is Plaintiffs position that these incidents together represent his co-workers’ unlawful harassment of him and discrimination against him on the basis of his national origin and age. Plaintiff imputes the unlawful harassment and discrimination to Defendant because Plaintiff believes that management assigned partial blame to Plaintiff for office tension which, according to Plaintiff, emboldened his coworkers to harass and discriminate against him further. Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant retaliated against him for his harassment and discrimination complaints against his co-workers.

It is Defendant’s position that Plaintiffs problems with his co-workers were nothing more than personality conflicts and that management addressed Plaintiffs complaints promptly and appropriately,

ii. The Nature Of Defendant’s Business And Plaintiffs Employment And Work Responsibilities

Defendant is a non-profit organization that provides mental health and residential services to individuals in need in four of the five New York City boroughs. Docket No. 43 ¶ 1; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 4. Among the services provided are supportive case management services, the purpose of which is to assist the Defendant’s clients in reaching various social, physical and/or mental-health goals. Docket No. 43 ¶ 2; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 5. Defendant has a written EEO Harassment and Sexual Harassment policy (“the EEO policy”) in which its employees are encouraged to bring any complaints or grievances regarding unlawful discrimination directly to their supervisor or management. Docket No. 43 ¶ 3; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 9; Docket No. 41-4. In brief, the EEO policy explains: (1) that Defendant’s policy is to “recruit, hire, train and promote” and to ensure that “all personnel actions such as compensation, benefits, transfers, layoffs, [Defendant]sponsored training, education, tuition assistance, and recruiting programs” are administered without regard to employees’ or applicants’ “sex, disability, race, religion, color, creed, national origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation or affec-tional preference, veteran status or citizenship status.” Docket No. 41-4 The EEO policy then outlines a grievance and complaint procedure for an employee to follow in making a complaint about an allegedly discriminatory or harassing incident with his or her supervisor, including the protocol for additional complaint when a supervisor, or even that supervisor’s supervisor, responds in a manner which is unsatisfactory to the complainant. Id.

In or around March 2009, Defendant’s Vice President of Operations Marcia Holman (“VPO Holman”) and Case Management Program Coordinator Lanre Yoosuf (“Supervisor Yoosuf’) interviewed Plaintiff for a job at Defendant’s Seaview Manor Supportive Case Management Program (“Seaview”) at an adult residential facility in Far Rockaway, New York. Docket No. 43 ¶ 6; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 11. VPO Holman and Supervisor Yoosuf jointly decided to hire Plaintiff; they knew his age and that he was Haitian when they hired him. Docket No. 41 3 ¶ 12; Docket No. 47-1 at 96-97, 269-70. At the time, VPO Holman was approximately 58 years old. Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 1. Supervisor Yoosufs age is not in the record.

On March 23, 2009, Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a supportive case manager (“SCM”) at Seaview and, at or around that time, Plaintiff received a copy of Defendant’s EEO policy. Docket No. 43 ¶¶ 4, 9; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 10; Docket No. 41-5. Plaintiff continues to work at Seaview in this capacity. Docket No. 43 ¶ 5; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 13.

At all relevant times, Plaintiffs responsibilities as an SCM at Seaview include, but are not limited to, individually managing the needs of a case load of clients; documenting and recording all services provided to clients; ensuring timely submission of all documentation and recording of services provided to clients in order to keep client charts current; making an adequate number of client visits in order to meet team goals; participating in staff meetings and case conferences, both at Seaview and at other treatment facilities as needed; and providing coverage for other SCM clients when necessary. Docket No. 43 ¶ 10; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 17.

iii. Plaintiffs Supervisors, Coworkers And Work Space

Supervisor Yoosuf was Plaintiffs supervisor from March 2009 until in or around April 2011, at which time Kathy Momper-ousse replaced her (“Supervisor Momper-ousse”). Docket No. 43 ¶¶ 7-8; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 14. From then until the present day, Supervisor Momperousse has been Plaintiffs supervisor. Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 15. Supervisor Momperousse is of Haitian descent. Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 16. Plaintiff testified that Supervisor Momper-ousse’s parents were born in Haiti and that although Supervisor Momperousse herself was not, “if you speak with her ... in Creole, you can say [that] she was born in Haiti.... She speaks ... fluently and with a correct accent.” Docket No. 47-1 at 271.

Beginning in January 2011 and for all relevant periods after that, Case Management Director Peter Wefers (“CM Director Wefers”) also worked at Seaview. Docket No. 43 ¶ 27. CM Director Wefers was stationed at Seaview in part to help as Supervisor Yoosuf transitioned out of her post and Supervisor Momperousse transí-tioned in. Docket No. 43 ¶ 27; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 29. As a result, CM Director Wef-ers himself directly supervised Plaintiff for a time. Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 29.

At all times relevant to this litigation, Plaintiff has worked out of a small rectangular office on the first floor of a residential care facility unaffiliated with Defendant. Docket No. 43 ¶ 11; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 18. At all times relevant to this matter, Plaintiff has shared workspace with four people: (1) Supervisor Momperousse; (2) SCM Nicole Hibbert; (3) SCM Errol Miller; and (4) SCM Giselle Nelson. Docket No. 43 ¶ 12; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 19; Docket No. 41-12 (Plaintiff discussing his problems with Ms. Hibbert and Mr. Miller in the shared office); Docket No. 41-17 (Supervisor Momperousse discussing Plaintiffs problems in the shared office with Ms. Hibbert and Mr. Miller); Docket No. 41-18 (same); Docket No. 31.

In or around November 2011, Ms. Hib-bert was transferred to a different location, and SCM Giselle Nelson began working in the Far Rockaway location with Plaintiff. Docket No. 43 ¶ 14.

iv. The Alleged Harassment, Discrimination And Retaliation

1. Plaintiffs Initial Disputes With Ms. Hibbert And Mr. Miller

Plaintiff claims that his workplace problems with Ms. Hibbert and Mr. Miller began in'or around September 20, 2010, when he complained that Ms. Hibbert and Mr. Miller told him that he was “old, Haitian and [that he] can’t be [a] boss” in the office, and that they excluded him from a daytime boat excursion with clients because they said that the “trip is for young people.” Docket No. 41-12; Docket No. 43 ¶ 34; Docket No. 47-1 at 208. According to Plaintiff, he submitted a complaint to VPO Holman about this incident through a telephone call or an email. Docket No. 47-1 at 209. On or around October 4, 2010, VPO Holman held a meeting with Plaintiff, Ms. Hibbert and Mr. Miller to discuss the incident and counseled them on “working together for the benefit of the clients.” Docket No. 43 ¶ 35; Docket No. 47-1 at 209.

Plaintiffs opinion of VPO Holman’s intervention in later years varied. On July 7, 2011, Plaintiff wrote on a Human Resources document that the meeting provided no solution, Docket No. 4,1-12, and Plaintiff testified that he felt isolation at work in the period after the September 2010 incident, Docket No. 47-1 at 53. Plaintiff also testified at the same deposition that VPO Holman had “responded positively” to Plaintiffs September 2010 complaint about his coworkers and that Plaintiff was satisfied with VPO Holman’s response at the October 4, 2010 meeting. Docket No. 43 ¶ 35; Docket No. 47-1 at 210.

2. The June 15, 2011 And June 16, 2011 Incidents

On June 16, 2011, Plaintiff complained to CM Director Wefers and Supervisor Mom-perousse about a series of events that had allegedly transpired between him and Ms. Hibbert on June 15 and June 16, 2011. Docket No. 43 ¶ 36. On June 16, 2011, Supervisor Momperousse e-mailed CM Director Wefers and the then-Assistant Vice President of Case Management Mary McGovern (“CMVP McGovern”) to describe Plaintiffs complaint:

On June 15th, [Plaintiff] stated that he used [Ms. Hibbert’s] office phone and [Ms. Hibbert] told him not to use her phone. [Plaintiff] states that [Ms. Hib-bert] wiped off the phone with disinfecting products. She also pushed the computer against [Plaintiffs] leg.

In the afternoon [Ms. Hibbert’s] father stopped by the office, he said hello and [Plaintiff] waved back. [Plaintiff] stated that [Ms. Hibbert] told him “don’t speak to my f* * *ing family.” [Plaintiff] stated that [Ms. Hibbert] told him [“]no one likes you here and we can shoot you out of here.[”]

On June 16th [Plaintiff] went out for lunch. He states that while he was standing at the bus stop near Beach 47th Street a group of bandits was walking towards him with their hands in their pockets. [Plaintiff] stated he then took out his cell phone and they ran away. He then heard gun shots. According to [Plaintiff] this occurred near [Ms. Hibbert’s] sister’s house.

Docket No. 41-9. Supervisor Momper-ousse’s June 16, 2011 email did not mention that Plaintiff alleged discrimination of any kind. Id.

According to Plaintiff, CM Director Wefers’s response to Plaintiffs complaint was to ask him why he didn’t quit and also to instruct him to report the incident to Human Resources. Docket No. 4.7-1 at 272, Docket No. 1. Plaintiff testified that he told CM Director that he would not “quit my job for this discrimination, I believe Human Resources managers can train the harasser to be a better person, [perhaps they will] not [be able to] change her, but change her behavior.” Docket No. 47-1 at 272. Plaintiff also testified that he could not recall whether Ms. Hib-bert said anything to him on June 15 or June 16, 2011 about his national origin or age. Id. at 224-25.

3. Defendant Investigated The June 15, 2011 And June 16, 2011 Incidents, Resulting in HR Director Tolle’s June 17, 2011 Summaiy Report

Supervisor Momperousse’s email triggered an immediate investigation by Defendant into the alleged June 15, 2011 and June 16, 2011 incidents. Docket No. 43 ¶ 38; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 32. On June 17, 2011,. Defendant’s Human Resources Director Stephanie Tolle (“HR Director Tolle”) met with Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert separately to discuss the matter and wrote a summary report. Docket No. 41-10; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 33. In HR Director Tolle’s June 17, 2011 Summary Report, the only mention of discrimination comes from Ms. Hibbert, who commented that Plaintiff “believes she is ... racist against Haitians” and “repeatedly brings up racism.” Docket No. 41-10. HR Director Tolle’s June 17, 2011 Summary Report’s description of Plaintiffs statements is devoid of national origin or age discrimination allegations. Id.

(1) The September 2010 Beginning Of Plaintiff And Ms. Hibbert’s Conflict And Its General Nature

According to HR Director Tolle’s June 17, 2011 Summary Report, Ms. Hibbert said that her conflict with Plaintiff began in September 2010, when they had a falling out over a trip that they were both scheduled to take with clients. Id. On the day of the trip in question, Plaintiff called out sick, leaving Ms. Hibbert with very little help. Id. Generally speaking, Ms. Hibbert believed that Plaintiff did not help his coworkers. Id. According to Ms. Hibbert, Plaintiff believed that Ms. Hibbert thought that she was his boss, and he often accused her of being “racist against Haitians.” Id.

As a result of the “constant tension” between her and Plaintiff, Ms. Hibbert reported that her morale suffered and that she felt uncomfortable in the office. Id. She did not believe that they could continue to work together, but she did not want to resign or be transferred because she felt she had built relationships with her clients at Seaview. Id.

According to HR Director Tolle’s June 17, 2011 Summary Report, Plaintiff stated that things were tense between him and Ms. Hibbert from the very first day they worked together. Docket No. 41-10. Plaintiff said that that tension manifested in part in Ms. Hibbert being a bully who called him a “nobody” and who “pushed equipment against his leg.” Id. Plaintiff theorized that the bad blood between them started because Ms. Hibbert resented the fact that Plaintiff got to sit at a desk intended for a supervisor, while Ms. Hib-bert sat at a desk for an SCM. Id. As a result of their difficult relationship, Plaintiff chose to communicate with Ms. Hib-bert through notes that he placed on her computer. Id.

(2) The Telephone Issues

According to HR Director Tolle’s June 17, 2011 Summary Report, Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert both confirmed that there were frequent disputes between them relating to the office telephone on Ms. Hib-bert’s desk. Id. Plaintiff accused Ms. Hib-bert of disinfecting the telephone after Plaintiff used it, and Ms. Hibbert freely admitted that she used sanitizer on the telephone. Id.

Plaintiff complained that Ms. Hibbert would tell him not to use her telephone, which was unfair because Ms. Hibbert would sometimes use his computer. Id. Ms. Hibbert wished that Plaintiff would get his own telephone at work because Plaintiff screened incoming calls to see if any of them involved Ms. Hibbert’s personal business and, if they did, he did not put them through to her. Id.

In addition, Ms. Hibbert explained that the telephone is a point of dispute in the office because Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert gave clients contradictory information as to whether clients may use it. Id.

(3)Ms. Hibbert’s June 15, 2011 Demand That Plaintiff Not Speak To Her Family

According to HR Director Tolle’s June 17, 2011 Summary Report, Ms. Hibbert admitted that on June 15, 2011, she told Plaintiff not to speak to her family. Id. According to Ms. Hibbert, she did this in response to Plaintiffs remark to her visiting father that Ms. Hibbert was in a “bad mood.” Id.

(4)The Alleged June 15, 2011 Threat

According to HR Director Tolle’s June 17, 2011 Summary Report, Plaintiff said that Ms. Hibbert told him, shortly after Ms. Hibbert told him not to speak to her father, that “[w]e will shoot you out of here.” Id. Plaintiff alluded to other threats but, according to HR Director Tolle’s notes, he could not explain what those threats were. Id.

(5)The Alleged June 16, 2011 Attempted Shooting

According to HR Director Tolle’s June 17, 2011 Summary Report, Plaintiff recounted that, while outside on his lunch break on June 16, 2011, he was near a bus stop near Ms. Hibbert’s sister’s (“Denise Hibbert”) home when a group of young men approached him. Id. The youths then ran away when Plaintiff pulled out his cellular telephone. Id. When Plaintiff turned and walked the other way, he heard two gun shots. Id. Plaintiff flagged down the police. Id. In addition to Supervisor Momperousse, Plaintiff reported the incident to CM Director Wefers. Id.

Ms. Hibbert denied making any threats against Plaintiff on June 16, 2011, or at any other time. Id.

4. Plaintiff And Ms. Hibbert Were Both Disciplined For Unprofessional Behavior

HR Director Tolle’s June 17, 2011 Summary Report did not make any conclusions about what, if anything, had happened to Plaintiff when he was out of the office during the alleged June 16, 2011 attempted shooting. Id.; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 34; Docket No 47-1 at 207-09. After her interviews with Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert, HR Director Tolle took steps to initiate discipline with respect to aspects of Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert’s dispute. HR Director Tolle met with Defendant’s Chief Executive Officer Jacob Barak (“CEO Ba-rak”) to discuss the employees’ interpersonal conflict and to develop a plan of action (“the Plan”). Docket No. 43 ¶ 42; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 36. On June 29, 2011, HR Director Tolle emailed the Plan to CMVP McGovern, CM Director Wefers and Supervisor Momperousse, with a copy to VPO Holman. Docket No. 41-11- The Plan was to give both Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert a disciplinary write up (Defendant’s internal term for this is a “Performance Correction Notice”) for failing to work as a team and reminding them that any further incidents would result in additional disciplinary action, including transfer or termination. Id. In addition, the Performance Correction Notice would include “measurements” of how Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert were expected to work as a team. Id. In the event that Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert could not resolve their differences and transfer became necessary, the Plan contemplated asking Plaintiff to transfer. Id. In particular, HR Director Tolle asked the recipients of the Plan email to research Plaintiffs travel time from home to Seaview as compared to the travel time from Plaintiffs home and another Defendant work location called Garden of Eden (“GOE”) in order to determine if a GOE transfer “would mean a hardship to [Plaintiff].” Id.

On July 7, 2011, Plaintiff received his Performance Correction Notice, and on July 12, 2011, Ms. Hibbert received hers. Docket No. 41-13. Docket No. 41-13. Each Performance Correction Notice was identical, stating that:

On Wednesday June 15, 2011[,] you engaged in a verbal dispute with one of your co-workers, ... over the use of an agency phone. This altercation was the continuation of various other disputes you have had with [your co-worker]. Despite meeting with management there has been no noticeable improvement in your ability to work professionally with [your co-worker,] and this lack of improvement has impacted negatively on the program and its clients. It also disrupts the continuum of care that [Defendant] is expected to provide.

Docket No. 41-12; Docket No. 41-13. The Performance Correction Notices also provided the following outcomes and consequences:

Positive: If you are able to respectfully work together as a team you will maintain your employment with [Defendant]. Negative: Failure to follow the above plan will result in further discipline up to, and including termination of employment.

Scheduled Review Date: Weekly for the next 6 months.

Docket No. 41-12; Docket No. 41-13. Other than the Performance Correction Notice requiring Plaintiff to meet regularly with management for progress discussions, Plaintiff testified that he was not suspended or demoted and that his pay was not decreased as a result of the Performance Correction Notice. Docket No. 47-1 at 195.

The Performance Correction Notices provided an opportunity to Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert to state their respective positions about the discipline. Docket No. 41-12. Plaintiff hand wrote more than two páges of comments in which he provided additional detail as to the events of June 15, 2011. Id. According to Plaintiff, CM Director Wefers asked Plaintiff what Plaintiff believed the phrase “[w]e will shoot you out of here” meant, and that Plaintiff responded, “it is open to many interpretations, including sending ... gang members to attack me on the street.” Id.

Next, Plaintiffs comments on his Performance Correction Notice appeared to change his description of the gunfire incident. Id. Whereas both Supervisor Mom-perousse’s June 16, 2011 email and HR Director Tolle’s June 17, 2011 Summary Report stated that Plaintiff described that the group of youths had run away from Plaintiff after he pulled out his cellular telephone and then he heard gun shots, Plaintiffs comments on his Performance Correction Notice stated instead that when the group of youths “got closer, I pulled [out] my cell phone then they open[ed] gun fire on me.” Id.

Third, Plaintiffs comments on his Performance Correction Notice mentioned an incident that occurred in the year 2010 which Plaintiff believed Defendant’s management had handled incorrectly. Id. On September 20, 2010, Plaintiff claimed to have reported an incident to Defendant’s Human Resources Department involving Ms. Hibbert and Mr. Miller harassing and being verbally abusive to him. Id. “They told me that I am old, Haitian and [that] I can’t be [a] boss here.” Id. These remarks appear to allude to the September 20, 2010 incident and VPO Holman’s subsequent intervention.

Finally, Plaintiffs comments on his Performance Correction Notice concluded with the following remark: “I am always a victim and because of the bias of [Defendant’s] management against me, co-workers treat me as [a] nobody as they always sa[y] I am. I am the victim of hostility because of my age and my national origin [and] I am seeking justice. I[am] considering] suing [Defendant] for discrimination.” Id.

5. Defendant Offered Plaintiff A Transfer To GOE With A Salary Increase, And Plaintiff Declined The Offer

Plaintiff testified that he was not demoted, not suspended and did not receive a salary decrease contemporaneous with the Performance Correction Notice. Docket No. 47-1 at 195. On July 11, 2011, Plaintiff had a meeting relating to the Performance Correction Notice with CMVP McGovern, in which CMVP McGovern asked Plaintiff if he would be interested in transferring to another SCM position at Defendant’s GOE work location. Docket No. 43 ¶ 45. Supervisor Momperousse was present during this meeting and took notes. Docket No. 41-14. Supervisor Momperousse’s July 11, 2011 Meeting Notes reflect that Plaintiff did not mention national origin or age discrimination during the conversation. Id.

According to Supervisor Momperousse’s July 11, 2011 Meeting Notes, Plaintiff said that the transfer would be “like a demotion” if it were only for an SCM position. Id. Plaintiff indicated that his travel time to and from GOE would be similar to his travel time to and from Seaview, but he also stated that he would not transfer to GOE for a SCM position. Id. Plaintiff told CMVP McGovern that he would “only accept a promotion with an increase in pay.” Id.

According to Supervisor Momperousse’s July 11, 2011 Meeting Notes, in response to Plaintiffs statement that he would only consider a transfer if he also received a promotion and a raise, CMVP McGovern stated that she might have an Intensive Case Management Position (“ICM”) position available. Id. Plaintiff responded that he would “accept an ICM position.” Id.

CMVP McGovern said that she would seek official approval so that Plaintiff could move forward to an interview for an ICM position at GOE, although she reminded him that any new agency position involved a six-month period of probation, with a three-month and six-month review. Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 36; Docket No. 41-14- Defendant has a written policy stating that “[a]ll promoted employees are required to serve a six (6) month probationary period in their new position.” Docket No. 41-15; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 39.

Finally, according to Supervisor Mom-perousse’s July 11, 2011 Meeting Notes, Plaintiff protested that if he were to be placed on probationary status, it would make it easier for Defendant to fire him. Docket No. 41-14. As a result of this concern, Plaintiff' declined CMVP McGovern’s offer to begin exploring the ICM promotion opportunity. Docket No. 43 ¶ 49; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 38.

6. Plaintiff And Ms. Hibbert’s August 12, 2011 Dispute Regarding A Telephone Call From Ms. Hibbert’s Sister And Ms. Hibbert Answering A Question Posed By The Sister Of One Of Plaintiffs Clients

On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff complained to'Supervisor Momperousse that Ms. Hib-bert had begun her “BS” again. Docket No. 41-16. For example, Plaintiff was offended that Ms. Hibbert continued tosanitize the phone. Docket No. bS ¶ 50. Supervisor Momperousse opened an investigation. Docket No. bl-16. Supervisor Momperousse took notes to create a record of her interviews with Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert about the dispute. Id. According to Supervisor Momperousse’s August 12, 2011 Investigation Notes, Plaintiff said nothing during the interview about national origin or age discrimination specifically, although he did at one point say that he was going to call a lawyer and also that Defendant “is going to have to pay.” Id.

(1) Ms. Hibbert’s Request That Plaintiff Pass Her A Telephone Call From Her Sister

According to Supervisor Momperousse’s August 12, 2011 Investigation Notes, Plaintiff said that the August 12, 2011 incident began when Ms. Hibbert “ordered” him to give her the telephone if her sister called. Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 40; Docket No. 41-16 Plaintiff asked Ms. Hibbert if that was “a command or an order,” and Ms. Hibbert responded that she did not want to discuss it further. Id.

According to Supervisor Momperousse’s August 12, 2011 Investigation Notes, Ms. Hibbert explained that her sister was in the late stages of a pregnancy, and Ms. Hibbert did not have her cellular telephone with her on the day in question, which is why she asked Plaintiff to pass her any telephone call from her sister. Id. Ms. Hibbert confirmed that she told Plaintiff that she did not want to discuss the matter further when Plaintiff asked whether Ms. Hibbert was giving him an order. Id.

After considering both Plaintiffs and Ms. Hibbert’s version of events about the telephone, Supervisor Momperousse’s August 12, 2011 Investigation Notes concluded that, as no one else was in the office at the time the conversation took place, “it is unknown what the tone of the conversation was.” Id.

(2) Ms. Hibbert’s Meeting With The Sister Of One Of Plaintiffs Clients

Next, according to Supervisor Momper-ousse’s ‘ August 12, 2011 Investigation Notes, Plaintiff complained that Ms. Hib-bert answered a question for the sister of one of Plaintiffs clients regarding transportation of the client for a home visit. Id.; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 40. Plaintiff was upset that Ms. Hibbert had not referred the matter to him. Docket No. 41-16.

Plaintiff explained that the client’s sister asked for Ms. Hibbert by name, and Supervisor Momperousse asked why Plaintiff had not simply interjected in order to handle the inquiry himself. Id. Plaintiff responded that if the shoe had been on the other foot, Defendant would take Plaintiff to task and say: “How dare you handle something for a client when the [assigned SCM] was here.” Id.

According to Supervisor Momperousse’s August 12, 2011 Investigation Notes, Ms. Hibbert said that when the client’s sister appeared at the office and asked for Ms. Hibbert by name, she “did not know how she knew my name.” Id. Ms. Hibbert “thought [that] maybe the client felt more comfortable with me so she told her sister to speak to [me, but I] told her that in the future she should [discuss] any client situation [with] the assigned [SCM] unless it’s an emergency and the [SCM] is not available.” Id.

Supervisor Momperousse’s August 12, 2011 Investigation Notes concluded that Plaintiff felt undermined by Ms. Hibbert’s handling «.of Plaintiffs client’s issue. Id. Supervisor Momperousse told Plaintiff that going forward, the office required a client’s assigned SCM to handle any issues relating to that client when the assigned SCM was available, and she instructed Ms. Hibbert of the same. Id. Finally, Supervisor Momperousse said that “[m]oving forward,” “all staff must address any issues they have directly with [her],” rather than attempting to handle the issues themselves first. Id.

7. Plaintiff And Ms. Hibbert’s October 12, 2011 Dispute Regarding Who Should Have Moved Ms. Hibbert’s Purse From The Paper Shredder So That Plaintiff Could Use It

On October 12, 2011, Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert had yet another argument. This time, Plaintiff wanted to use the office paper shredder, but he found that Ms. Hibbert’s personal bag was on top of it. Docket No. 41-17; Docket No. 41-3 ¶40. Plaintiff attempted to pick up Ms. Hib-bert’s bag with a stapler to move it so that he could use the shredder. Docket No. 41-17. The dispute came to the attention of Supervisor Momperousse, who sent an email summary of the incident to CMVP McGovern and CM Director Wefers. Id.

According to Supervisor Momperousse’s October 12, 2011 Email Summary Report, Ms. Hibbert told Plaintiff that if he asked her to move the bag, she would. Id. Plaintiff then told Ms. Hibbert to move the bag “now,” and Ms. Hibbert refused. Id. At that point, Mr. Miller intervened, picked up the bag and moved it. Id. Supervisor Momperousse’s October 12, 2011 Email Summary Report makes no mention that Plaintiff made any allegation of national origin or age discrimination regarding the paper-shredder event.

8. Plaintiffs November 9, 2011 Hole-Punch Litter Dispute With Ms. Hibbert And Mr. Miller

On November 9, 2011, Plaintiff arrived at work to find little paper circles from a hole puncher on his desk and chair. Docket No. 11-18. Plaintiff confronted Ms. Hibbert and Mr. Miller and asked them whether they were responsible. Id.; Docket No. 11-3 ¶ 40. Supervisor Mom-perousse began another investigation. Docket no. 11-18.

According to Supervisor Momperousse’s November 9, 2011 Email Summary Report, Plaintiff said that Ms. Hibbert and Mr. Miller both denied involvement, and that Mr. Miller told the Plaintiff that “[n]o one likes you here, not one person at Sea-view likes you.” Id. Plaintiff told Supervisor Momperousse that Mr. Miller said that no one liked Plaintiff at his previous job, either. Id.

In his conversation with Supervisor Momperousse, Plaintiff compared his plight at Seaview to the religious persecution suffered by Jewish people in Hitler-era Germany and in modern-day Iran, although Supervisor Momperousse’s November 9, 2011 Email Summary Report makes no mention of Plaintiff stating anything specifically about himself being a victim of national origin or age discrimination. Id. Plaintiff took pictures of his desk as the first step in an investigation that Plaintiff himself intended to conduct. Id. Plaintiff then left the paper circles on his desk and chair all day because, according to Plaintiff, the person who put them there was responsible for cleaning the paper up. Id.

Plaintiff told Supervisor Momperousse that Mr. Miller approached him later and apologized for his earlier outburst. Id. Mr. Miller said that he would clean up the paper circles as a peace offering, but Plaintiff complained to Supervisor Mom-perousse that in the end Mr. Miller cleaned Plaintiffs chair but not his desk. Id.

According to Supervisor Momperousse’s November 9, 2011 Email Summary Report, when Supervisor Momperousse asked Mr. Miller and Ms. Hibbert for their versions of the story, Mr. Miller denied saying that no one at Seaview liked Plaintiff. Id. As for the paper circles, Mr. Miller stated that he told Plaintiff that it was conceivable that Mr. Miller or another employee had done it accidentally, an explanation that Plaintiff refused to accept. Id. Mr. Miller also remembered Plaintiff stating something about' Hitler and the Jewish people, but he did not remember exactly what Plaintiff said. Id.

Supervisor Momperousse’s November 9, 2011 Email Summary Report concluded by noting that Supervisor Momperousse cleaned up the paper circles herself, and Plaintiff stated that his personal investigation was closed because Mr. Miller had apologized. Id.

9. Plaintiffs November 14, 2011 Meeting With CMYP McGovern

On November 14, 2011, in the aftermath of the hole-punch incident, CMVP McGovern met with Plaintiff. Docket No. 43 ¶57; Docket No. 41-3 ¶41. Supervisor Momperousse was present during this meeting, took notes and emailed them to CMVP McGovern after the meeting. Docket No. 4-1-19.

According to Supervisor Momperousse’s November 14, 2011 Meeting Notes, CMVP McGovern asked Plaintiff if he wished to file a formal complaint over the hole punch incident, and Plaintiff said he did not, because Mr. Miller apologized to him. Id. CMVP McGovern then reminded Plaintiff that in the future, if a similar incident occurred, Plaintiff had to file a complaint immediately in lieu of investigating it himself. Id. According to Supervisor Mom-perousse’s November 14, 2011 Meeting Notes, CMVP McGovern reminded Plaintiff that he could not take photographs in the office without Defendant’s permission in the future because Defendant, as a health-care business, was responsible for adhering to strict regulations regarding client confidentiality. Id. Supervisor Momperousse’s November 14, 2011 Meeting Notes make no mention of Plaintiff alleging national origin or age discrimination.

10. Defendant Transferred Ms. Hibbert To Another Work Location

On or around November 15, 2011, Defendant’s management determined that the working relationship between Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert could not be repaired, and on that date, Defendant transferred Ms. Hib-bert to the Bronx Blended Case Management Program in the Bronx, New York. Docket No. 43 ¶ 59; Docket No. 41-3 ¶¶ 42-43.

Plaintiff testified that he believed that Defendant transferred Ms. Hibbert to provide him with a better work environment. Docket No. 47-1 at 240. Plaintiff also testified that he “strongly believe[s] that [Defendant] tried to finally find a solution” to the conflict between Plaintiff and Ms. Hibbert. Id. at 265. Finally, Plaintiff testified that since Ms. Hibbert’s transfer, he has had no contact with her. Id. at 260.

11. Plaintiff Files EEOC Charges

In or around July 2011, Plaintiff filed charges of discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA with the EEOC. Docket No. 43 ¶ 63; Docket No. 41-21 (copy of the Notice of Charge of Discrimination sent to Defendant to the attention of HR Director Tolle). In his Charge of Discrimination, Plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to discrimination and/or harassment on the basis of his national origin (Haitian) and age (fifty-something during all relevant periods), and unlawful retaliation for complaining about the discrimination and harassment. Docket No. 43 ¶ 64; Docket No. 41-21.

On November 7, 2011, EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Right to Sue. Docket No. 43 ¶ 65.

v. Plaintiffs Starting Salary And BiAnnual Salary Increases, Annual Performance Reviews And Annual Performance Bonuses, And Holiday Bonuses

1. Plaintiffs Starting Salary And Bi-Annual Salary Increases

When Plaintiff began working for Defendant on March 23, 2009, his salary was $32,000.00 per year. Docket No. 43 ¶ 15; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 20. Plaintiff has since received biyearly salary increases. Docket No. 43 ¶ 16; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 21.

For example, in 2011, when Plaintiff celebrated his two-year anniversary working for Defendant, his salary rose 5% to approximately $33,600.00 annually. Docket No. 43 ¶ 16; Docket No. 41-20. The salary increase marking Plaintiffs two-year anniversary went into effect on his April 25, 2011 paycheck. Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 47. Defendant made Plaintiffs raise retroactive to March 23, 2011, the actual date of Plaintiffs two-year anniversary, and his April 25, 2011 paycheck therefore contained an additional $141.54 covering the period between March 23, 2011 (his two-year anniversary date) and April 25, 2011 (the date his raise was first reflected on a paycheck). Docket No. 41-3 ¶¶ 47-48.

Next, in March 2013 (after Plaintiffs discrimination complaints, EEOC charge and this lawsuit), Plaintiffs salary rose another 5% to approximately $35,280.00 annually. Docket No. IS ¶ 16; Docket No. 11-3 ¶ 21.

2. Plaintiffs 2010, 2011 And 2012 Annual Performance Evaluations And 2011, 2012 And 2013 Annual Performance Bonuses

Defendant’s policy and practice is to give SCMs like Plaintiff annual performance evaluations. Docket No. 13 ¶ 19. An SCM’s Supervisor conducts the annual performance evaluation with oversight from the Human Resources Department and other members of Defendant’s management. Id. ¶ 21; Docket No. 11-3 ¶ 25. Plaintiff received such annual performance evaluations every year from 2010 until at least 2012.

In addition, Defendant gives annual bonuses tied to its employees’ performances, typically in June of each calendar year. Defendant gave such annual performance bonuses to Plaintiff on June 24, 2011; June 22, 2012; and on some unidentified date in June 2013, all of which issued after his June 2011 and two of which issued after his later discrimination complaints, the EEOC charge and this lawsuit.

When Plaintiff testified about the performance evaluations he received relating to his work as an SCM for Defendant, he stated that he generally viewed them as “good/great” but that in May 2012 Supervisor Momperousse said “one negative thing.” Docket No. 17-1 at 166-67. When Plaintiff testified about any less-than-perfect marks he received on his performance evaluations, and in particular the May 2012 evaluation, he did not state that he believed they were motivated by discrimination; instead, Plaintiff explained that any such grade was because a supervisor filling out the form' would find it

hard to say, “Oh Jean Paul. I don’t see anything wrong [with] you. I cannot give you [the highest mark], I cannot give you that, even though there is nothing [wrong].” [B]ut [the supervisor] will have to add something [even though] there was clearly no problem with me. If [Defendant] ha[d] four people like me in the office, you [would] have the best office in the whole world and work done on time and everything.

Id. at 174. “I’m a four person, I am supposed to get a four always.” Id. at 188.

(1) Plaintiffs May 2010 Performance Evaluation And June 2010 Performance Bonus

In May 2010, Supervisor Yoosuf gave Plaintiff his first performance evaluation, for the period June 2009 through May 2010. Docket No. 43 ¶ 23; Docket No. 41-3 ¶26. Supervisor Yoosuf indicated in that evaluation that “[Plaintiff] can be more open to accepting advice from his peers”; that “[Plaintiff] can be more open to suggestions from his colleagues and extend himself to other clients who are not on his caseload”; and that “[Plaintiffs] communication skills have been a major achievement with his clients but minimal with his peers.” Docket No. 41-6. Plaintiff reviewed Supervisor Yoosufs evaluation of his performance and signed it to confirm his receipt of the document. Id. Plaintiff had the opportunity to respond to the evaluation with his own comments, but he did not make any comments. Id.

The record does not indicate whether Plaintiff received a performance bonus in June 2010 (June is the month in which these bonuses are historically awarded). Assuming arguendo, that the record’s silence on this point means that Plaintiff did not receive a June 2010 bonus, this was roughly one year before Plaintiffs June 2011 discrimination complaints.

(2) Plaintiffs May 2011 Performance Evaluation And June 2011 Performance Bonus

In May 2011, CM Director Wefers and Supervisor Momperousse jointly gave Plaintiff his second performance evaluation, for the period May 2010 through May 2011. Docket No. 41-7; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 27. CM Director Wefers and Supervisor Momperousse collaborated because CM Director Wefers oversaw the transition of Supervisor Momperousse as Supervisor Yoosuf s replacement. The evaluation indicated that “[a]t times, there is friction among [Plaintiff] and his co-workers and he has difficulty resolving the conflict(s) when they arise”; “[Plaintiff] has a difficult time communicating with his peers effectively [and] can also get into arguments with his co-workers that can affect the tenor of the office”; “[Plaintiff] does not take the lead or work as a team member with his co-workers”; and “[Plaintiff] tends to isolate himself from others at work thus creating tension within the office.” Docket No. 41-7.- Plaintiff reviewed his May 2011 performance evaluation and signed it to confirm receipt, but not before adding that he “disagree[d] with the term ‘self-isolation’ because it does not signify who I am. The real thing is that I’m excluded and deserve a better grade[.]” Id.

On June 24, 2011, Plaintiff received an annual performance bonus. Docket No. 43 ¶¶ 1719; Docket No. 41-3 ¶¶ 22-^24, 49; Docket No. 41-21.

(3) Plaintiffs May 2012 Performance Evaluation And June 2012 Performance Bonus

In May 2012, Supervisor Momperousse gave Plaintiff his third performance evaluation, for the period May 2011 through May 2012. Docket No. 41-8; Docket No. 41-3 ¶ 30. Supervisor Momperousse stated that “[Plaintiff] has a difficult time communicating with his supervisors and peers” and “[Plaintiff] should also provide more assistance in the office as there is not an administrative assistant^ and so] it is the responsibility of the team to ensure that the daily office operations run smoothly and efficiently.” Docket No. 41-8. Plaintiff signed the evaluation after adding the following comment: “I disagree with the communication problem that [does] not exist and the supervisor and other [SCMs] have alienated me as [a] group. I am open and do my job and communicate effectively with everyone.” Id.

On June 22, 2012, Plaintiff received an annual performance bonus. Docket No. 43 ¶¶ 17-19; Docket No. 41-3 ¶¶ 22-24, 49; Docket No. 41-21,

3. Plaintiffs Annual Holiday Bonuses

Finally, on December 20, 2011; December 14, 2012; and December 20, 2013, Plaintiff received holiday bonuses. Docket No. 43 ¶¶ 17-19; Docket No. 41-3 ¶¶ 22-24, 49; Docket No. 41-21. Defendant gave all such annual holiday bonuses to Plaintiff after his June 2011 and later discrimination complaints, the EEOC charge and this lawsuit. Plaintiff testified that the holiday bonuses were “a favor that Pm not entitled to. I’ll always say thanks for it is the Christmas bonus. That’s a favor they don’t owe [to] me, that [they] give to me.” Docket No. 47-1 at 196.

b. Procedural History

On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging that Defendant violated his rights under Title VII and ADEA. Docket No. 1. On April 3, 2012, Defendants answered. Docket No. 8.

On November 7, 2012, I held an Initial Conference and set a discovery and pretrial schedule. Docket Entry 11/8/2012. On November 30, 2012, Plaintiff moved for a 60-day extension of the discovery schedule. Docket No. 12. I granted the motion in part by extending discovery for 30 days, and set a telephone conference. Docket Entry 12/10/2012.

On January 4, March 1, April 8 and June 7, 2013, I held telephone conferences with the Parties and revised the discovery schedule according to the Parties’ requests and Plaintiffs needs. Docket No. 1/28/2013; Docket Entry 3/1/2013; Docket Entry 4/16/2013; Docket Entry 6/7/2013. I regularly gauged the Parties’ interest in settlement during these conferences, and at times went off the record in order to manage settlement discussions. M During these conferences, I reminded Plaintiff of his evidentiary burden in proving his claims as discovery deadlines loomed.

Plaintiff submitted a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel, Docket Nos. 23, 25, but then mooted the motion when he found an attorney named Rony Provincil to represent him, Docket No. 26; Docket Entry 8/8/2013. During an August 6, 2013 telephone conference, Mr. Provincil appeared for Plaintiff and informed me of his intention to file a Notice of Appearance. Docket No. 8/6/2013. I extended the discovery schedule so that Mr. Provincil could expand upon the discovery that Plaintiff had done up to that point, if Mr. Provincil wished to do so. Id.

On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Court announcing that Mr. Provincil would not be appearing as his attorney after all. Docket No. 29. Plaintiff indicated in that same letter that he wished to continue representing himself pro se, and indeed, Plaintiff never renewed his request for appointment of pro bono counsel. Id.; Docket No. 30 (Mr. Provincil confirming that he would not enter a Notice of Appearance for Plaintiff).

On December 17 and February 20, 2014, I met with the Parties for an in-person and a telephone conference, respectively, and the final discovery schedule was set as well as a summary judgment briefing schedule. Docket Entry 12/17/2013; Docket Entry 2/20/2014- Once again, I discussed with Plaintiff his burdens of proof relating to surviving summary judgment and succeeding at trial. Id.

Discovery closed on March 18, 2014. Docket No. 32.

On April 8, 2014, Defendant requested an adjournment of the summary judgment briefing schedule so that the Parties, with the benefit of completed discovery, could attempt a settlement conference and avoid motion practice. Docket No. 34- As a result, on April 22, 2014, I held a three-hour settlement conference with the Parties, which proved unsuccessful. Docket Entry 1/22/2011.

On August 7, 2014, Defendant filed its bundled motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s opening papers included Defendant’s notice of motion, Docket No. 89; summary judgment notice particular to pro se plaintiffs, Docket No. 10; affidavit from counsel Michael Abitabilo describing and testifying to the authenticity of various supporting exhibits, Docket No. 11; memorandum of law, Docket No. 12; and Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts, Docket No. 13. Plaintiff opposed with a letter to the Court. Docket Nos. 81, 36, 44. Defendant replied with an affidavit from VPO Holman with supporting exhibits, Docket No. 15, and another memorandum of law, Docket No. 1.6.

II. Summary Judgment Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper only when, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Kwong v. Bloomberg, 723 F.3d 160, 164-65 (2d Cir.2013); Redd v. N.Y. Div. of Parole, 678 F.3d 166, 174 (2d Cir.2012). The role of the court is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Cioffi v. Averill Park Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 444 F.3d 158, 162 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). The “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” is not enough to defeat summary judgment; “there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Jeffreys v. City of N.Y., 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505). The court’s function is to decide “whether, after resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party, a rational juror could find in favor of that party.” Pinto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 221 F.3d 394, 398 (2d Cir.2000). The Second Circuit has cautioned that “[w]here an employer acted with discriminatory intent, direct evidence of that intent will only rarely be available, so ... affidavits and depositions must be carefully scrutinized for circumstantial proof which, if believed, would show discrimination.” Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir.2010) (internal citations omitted).

III. Discussion

a. Plaintiffs Complaint, Title VII And The ADEA, Generally

Plaintiff brings his hostile work environment, discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and the ADEA, alleging that Defendant harassed and discriminated against him due to his national origin and age, then retaliated against him for complaining about it. Docket No. I.

“Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer ‘to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s ... national origin.’ ” Brown v. Daikin Am. Inc., 756 F.3d 219, 225-26 (2d Cir.2014) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l)). Title VII also “forbids an employer to retaliate against an employee for, inter alia, complaining of employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII.” Kessler v. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 461 F.3d 199, 205 (2d Cir.2006) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)).

Similarly, “[t]he ADEA prohibits employers from refusing to hire, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against an employee with regard to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of age.” Hrisinko v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 369 Fed.Appx, 232, 234 (2d Cir.2010) (citing to 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1)). The ADEA’s protections apply to individuals “at least 40 years of age.” 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). In addition to prohibiting discrimination, the ADEA “makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an individual for opposing such age discrimination.” Ostrowski v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 968 F.2d 171, 180 (2d Cir.1992) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 623(d)).

Under Title VII and the ADEA, discrimination may take the form of an employer’s discrete acts of discrimination or a hostile work environment. “[A] hostile work environment is one form of disparate treatment on the basis of ... national origin” under Title VII and on the basis of age under the ADEA. Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610, 617 (2d Cir.2001); Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 148 (2d Cir.2003) (stating that Title VII’s hostile work environment standards “apply to hostile work environment claims brought under the ADEA”). “Whereas other disparate treatment claims may scrutinize discrete harms ... a hostile work environment claim anal-yses a workplace environment as a whole to discover whether it is abusive.” Raniola, 243 F.3d at 617.

b. Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion Relating To Plaintiffs National Origin And Age-Based Hostile Work Environment And Discrimination Claims Is Granted Because The Record Does Not Support An Inference Of Discrimination

i. Law Relating To The Inferehce-Of-Discrimination Requirement

According to the Second Circuit in Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365, 373-74 (2d Cir.2002), “it is axiomatic” that a plaintiff bringing a Title VII national origin claim or an ADEA claim based on a hostile work environment or a discrete act of discrimination must show that the offending conduct was motivated by the plaintiffs national origin or age, respectively. The importance of this element cannot be overstated. As applied here, the sine qua non of Plaintiffs Title VII national-origin claims is that Defendant discriminated against him due to his Haitian national origin and the sine qua non of Plaintiffs ADEA claims is that Defendant discriminated against him due to his age. See Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir.2007) (“It is axiomatic that mistreatment at work ... is actionable under Title VII only when it occurs because of an employee’s ... protected characteristic.”). Under Title VII, a plaintiff can make a prima, facie showing of an employer’s actionable discrimination with evidence that the employer acted against the plaintiff based solely upon his or her membership in a protected class, or “because of both permissible and impermissible considerations — i.e., a ‘mixed-motives’ ease.” Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 169, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). By contrast, an ADEA plaintiff makes a prima facie case of an employer’s actionable discrimination by showing that his or her age was the “but for” cause of the complained-of disparate treatment; the ADEA does not permit a “mixed motives” theory of recovery. See Delaney v. Bank of Am. Corp., 766 F.3d 163, 168 (2d Cir.2014). Perhaps obviously, Title VII’s “mixed-motive” standard is more lenient than the ADEA’s “but-for” standard. See Wesley-Dickson v. Warwick Valley Cent. Sch. Dist., 973 F.Supp.2d 386, 403 n. 10 (S.D.N.Y.2013), aff'd by 586 Fed.Appx. 739 (2d Cir.2014); see also Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 240, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) (“In determining whether a particular factor [such as a plaintiffs age] was a but-for cause of a given event, we begin by assuming that that factor was present at the time of the event, and then ask whether, even if that factor had been absent, the event nevertheless would have transpired in the same way.”). A plaintiff alleging a hostile work environment must show that it occurred due to his or her protected status under Title VII and the ADEA, although the analysis may be slightly different than when a plaintiff alleges discrimination based upon a discrete adverse employment action due to differences in the nature of the two claims. See Alfano, 294 F.3d at 373.

ii. The Record Does Not Support A Finding Of An Inference Of Discrimination On Plaintiffs Title VII Or ADEA Hostile-Work-Environment And Discrimination Claims

1. The Hostile-Work-Environment Claims

At the outset, I note that the record shows that Ms. Hibbert’s and Mr. Miller’s September 2010 comments that Plaintiff cannot be “boss” because he is old and Haitian, and that the day trip was for young people, are the only two remarks referencing Plaintiffs national origin and age in the nearly six years he has worked for Defendant. “This is the very definition” of what constitutes “stray remarks” under employment discrimination law. See Wesley-Dickson, 973 F.Supp.2d at 406 (granting summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiffs race-based hostile-work-environment claim, stating that although the plaintiff had highlighted “various items that made her work life unpleasant,” the “two discriminatory comments regarding her race” were not sufficient to “link[ ] those items to racial hostility”); Cadet v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., No. 11 Civ. 7964(CM), 2013 WL 3090690, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2013) (finding that a staffer’s three hostile and racially tinged comments about the plaintiff over the course of the plaintiffs three years of employment were stray remarks); Waldo v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosp. Corp., No. 06 Civ. 2614(SLT)(LB), 2009 WL 2777003, at *16-17 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2009) (granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs national-origin-based and gender-based hostile work environment discrimination claims because “[t]he record reflects only two incidents that invoke national origin or gender discrimination” and, as a result, the plaintiff “fails to show that the environment was because of his national origin or gender”); Rissman v. Chertoff, No. 08 Civ. 7352(DC), 2008 WL 5191394, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2008) (dismissing the pro se plaintiffs race- and religion-based hostile-work-environment claim sua sponte because, inter alia, despite the plaintiffs “litany of facts regarding his mistreatment by coworkers and supervisors,” “[t]he few facts alleged by plaintiff relating to his race or religion do not amount to more than stray remarks made by coworkers and cannot support a plausible claim of hostile work environment”).

In Danzer v. Norden Systems, Inc., 151 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir.1998), the Second Circuit concluded that “ ‘stray remarks’ alone do not support a discrimination suit,” and so, as a result, Ms. Hib-bert’s and Mr. Miller’s stray remarks here cannot establish the inference of discrimination necessary for a prima facie hostile-work-environment claim. See Hassan v. City of Ithaca, N.Y., No. 10 Civ. 6125(MAT), 2012 WL 1190649, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2012) (granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, stating that a plaintiffs allegation that his co-worker’s stray remarks about people of Middle-Eastern descent could not alone establish inference of discrimination to support a hostile work environment claim); Rissman, 2008 WL 5191394, at *3 (dismissing the plaintiffs hostile work environment claim because a co-worker’s statement that the plaintiff only criticized an anti-Semitic movie because his rabbi told him to, or other co-worker’s “many comments to make him feel left out as one of the few non-Hispanic white person,” “do not amount to more than stray remarks”).

It is because “[e]veryone can be characterized by sex, race, ethnicity, [age], or (real or perceived) disability” that “[i]t is therefore important in hostile work environment cases to exclude from considerations [acts taken against the plaintiff] that lack a linkage or correlation to the claimed ground of discrimination.” Alfano, 294 F.3d at 377. At the same time, the Second Circuit has recognized that even if “the majority of incidents” cited by a plaintiff are neutral with respect to the plaintiffs protected status,” under certain circumstances, “one single discriminatory incident may be enough to allow an inference that those “[f]aeially neutral incidents” were also motivated by impermiss