DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Elizabeth Arnold, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment discrimination based on gender, national origin, and race. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff, a Caucasian female from the United States, alleges that she applied for various information technology positions with Defendant Independent Health Association, Inc. (incorrectly sued as Independent Health Corp, Independent Health Assoc., Inc. and Subsidiary Reliance Rx) from October 2016 through October 2017, but was not hired because of her race, gender, and national origin. Id. 14. Presently before the Court is IHA’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 57. For the reasons that follow, IHA’s Motion is GRANTED. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows that 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 also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Disputes concerning material facts are genuine where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In deciding whether genuine issues of material fact exist, the court construes all facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor. See Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 553 (2d Cir. 2005). However, the non-moving party “may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation.” F.D.I.C. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 607 F.3d 288, 292 (2d Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted); see also Saji v. Nassau Univ. Med. Ctr., 724 F. App’x 11, 13-14 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (applying same standard to summary judgment motion in case of failure to hire due to national origin). BACKGROUND Plaintiff submitted several applications to IHA for various information technology positions between October 2016 and October 2017.1 IHA interviewed Plaintiff for only one position but declined to hire her for any of the positions. The Court turns to each of these applications. 1. Application Solution Architect — October 2016 In October 2016, Plaintiff submitted an electronic application — consisting only of her resume — for the Solution Architect position. ECF No. 58
18, 20. Plaintiff’s resume did not contain any information regarding Plaintiff’s race or national origin. Id. 26. The posting required that applicants satisfy all of the listed “Qualifications,” including, as relevant here, at least five years of experience in “building, designing, purchasing and integrating systems.” Id.
