DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Lisa Ireland brings this employment-discrimination action against her former employer, Rochester Institute of Technology (“RIT”).1 ECF No. 1. The only remaining claims against RIT are retaliation claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”). RIT now moves for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. ECF No. 68. Plaintiff opposes the motion, ECF No. 72, and RIT has filed its reply. ECF No. 77. For the reasons that follow, RIT’s motion for summary judgment 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). BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the record. In July 2014, RIT hired Plaintiff to work in the Development and Alumni Relations Division as a “Director of [D]onor [S]tewardship.” ECF No. 68-3 at 10. The division was headed by Lisa Chase and was split into different teams. Id. at 12; ECF No. 72-1 2. When she was first hired, Plaintiff worked under the direct supervision of Kim Slusser. ECF No. 72-1 3. Within “the first three or four months,” however, Chase implemented an “organizational realignment” among the teams, and Plaintiff began to report to Heather Engel. ECF No. 68-3 at 12-13. In July 2016, Plaintiff disclosed to Engel that Slusser had been sexually harassing her. See ECF No. 68-3 at 45. Generally, Plaintiff alleged that Slusser had made inappropriate, sexually suggestive comments about Plaintiff and her husband and had, on one occasion, grabbed her husband’s buttocks. See ECF No. 72-5 at 8-9. In August 2016, Plaintiff met with Judith Rolwing — a member of RIT’s Human Resources department — to formally complain about Slusser’s behavior. See ECF No. 68-3 at 45-46. Rolwing conducted an investigation and issued a report on October 6, 2016. See ECF No. 72-4. She concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations about Slusser’s comments were substantiated, but that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Slusser had inappropriately touched Plaintiff’s husband. See id. Plaintiff internally appealed the determination and Rolwing reopened the investigation. ECF No. 72-1
12, 13. On October 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR”). ECF No. 72-5. On November 15, 2016, after conducting “additional interviews,” Rolwing ultimately affirmed her original findings for purposes of the internal administrative process. ECF No. 72-8 at 2; ECF No. 72-1
