MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Marjorie Phillips brings this seventeen-count action against her employer the Fashion Institute of Technology, supervisor Mary Davis, and coworker Marilyn Barton for race-based discrimination, disparate treatment, retaliation, hostile work environment and interference with protected rights in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), and the New York City Administrative Code §8-107 (“NYCHRL”). (Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff also asserts claims of negligent hiring, training, and retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault. (Id.) Before this Court are Defendants’ motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF Nos. 79, 80, 81, 86.) Defendants’ motions are GRANTED. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. Plaintiff has been employed with Defendant Fashion Institute of Technology (“FIT”) since 1995, when she began work in FIT’s payroll department as a part-time clerical assistant. (Defs.’ Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“SUMF”), ECF No. 85, 19.) Between 1995 and 2006, Plaintiff applied for and obtained three “upgrades” within FIT to titles with higher pay.1 (Id. 20.) Since her last upgrade in 2005, Plaintiff has been in the position of “office associate.” (Id. 24.) In July 2017, Plaintiff had a conversation with her supervisor, Defendant Mary Davis, about the possibility of Davis assigning Plaintiff additional duties and supporting a request for an upgrade. (SUMF 33.) Plaintiff testified that she and Davis “discussed what would be involved in this new position,” that Davis asked Plaintiff “to look into a job title that would reflect this new job,” and that Plaintiff and Davis ultimately “decided that I was going to go to human resources, because, you know, they could help me with that.” (Id. 38.) In the weeks following, Plaintiff spoke with Human Resources about possible job titles and received the information she needed, (id.
41-47), but she never followed up with Davis, applied for any posted vacancy, or pursued a “reevaluation” of her title under the appropriate procedures, (id.
