MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Gina Williams, brought this action against the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) and several NYCHA employees in their personal and official capacities, alleging retaliation, a hostile work environment, and discrimination on the basis of race and gender, in violation of various provisions of federal and state law. In a thorough Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 23, 2021, this Court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed nearly all of the plaintiff’s claims, with the exception of certain retaliation claims against NYCHA based on a comment that Hearing Officer Fredrika Wilson allegedly made at the plaintiff’s June 28, 2017 Local Disciplinary Hearing (the “Local Hearing”). See Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., No. 18-cv-5912, 2021 WL 1109842, at *5, *25 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2021) (“March 2021 Opinion”). The Court assumes familiarity with the March 2021 Opinion, including its extensive description of the facts of this case. Id. at *2-8.1 The June 28, 2017 Local Hearing at issue arose out of two charges of “incompetency and/or misconduct” lodged against the plaintiff, a former Resident Buildings Superintendent for NYCHA, based on alleged performance issues for which the plaintiff had received counseling memoranda earlier in the year. See id. at *5. The plaintiff was represented at the hearing by a representative of her union, the City Employees Union, Local 237 (“Local 237″), pursuant to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between NYCHA and Local 237 that governed the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment at all relevant times. Id. at *3, *5; see CBA, ECF No. 103-26, §40(c)(vi). At the Local Hearing, Wilson “found [the plaintiff] guilty on one of the two charges, dismissed the second charge, and issued a formal reprimand.” March 2021 Opinion, 2021 WL 1109842, at *5. The plaintiff alleges that Wilson, in the presence of the plaintiff’s union representative, also told the plaintiff that she “should not have taken her little letter dated February 8, 2017 to the [NYCHA Chairperson] Shola Olatoye.” Id. The February 8, 2017 letter to which this alleged comment referred was a letter addressed to the plaintiff’s union president, with Olatoye and several state and local politicians copied, setting forth the plaintiff’s complaints about gender discrimination and other conditions of her employment. Id. at *4. The Court found that, while the plaintiff had failed to adduce evidence of discrimination or retaliation in connection with the decision to bring charges against her, Wilson’s alleged comment was sufficient to raise a question of material fact as to whether the Hearing Officer’s ruling was rendered in retaliation for the plaintiff’s complaints of gender discrimination. Id. at *18-20. For that specific reason, the Court denied the summary judgment motion with respect to the plaintiff’s retaliation claims against NYCHA under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§8-101 et seq. (“NYCHRL”). Id. at *20-22. In response to a subsequent request from NYCHA, this Court allowed NYCHA to make a supplemental motion for summary judgment limited to “the issue of why the alleged comment by the hearing officer cannot support a judgment for the plaintiff against NYCHA as a matter of law.” ECF No. 179.2 Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, it is now clear that the Hearing Officer’s alleged statement at the Local Hearing cannot serve as the basis for a retaliation claim against NYCHA under Title VII or the NYSHRL. The June 28, 2017 Local Hearing was conducted pursuant to the CBA between the plaintiff’s union and NYCHA. See March 2021 Opinion, 2021 WL 1109842, at *5 (explaining that “under the terms of the CBA, minor disciplinary matters are first tried before a neutral Hearing Officer at a ‘Local Hearing,’ in lieu of a formal hearing under Section 75″ of the New York State Civil Service Law). In accordance with the CBA, NYCHA and the plaintiff’s union jointly selected Wilson to act as the Hearing Officer, and Wilson’s fee for the Local Hearing was split equally between NYCHA and the union. See CBA §40(c)(iii)(1) (“Local disciplinary cases shall be informal cases heard and decided by neutral hearing officers selected and agreed to by the parties. The fees of the hearing officer shall be apportioned equally between the parties.”); see also NYCHA’s Rule 56.1 Statement, ECF No. 186,
