OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Vincent C. Finizia, brings this action against defendants Crawford & Company (“Crawford”) and Kimberley Bethea, alleging defendants discriminated against him because of his age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). Now pending is defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc #39). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§1331 and 1367. BACKGROUND The parties have submitted memoranda of law; affirmations, declarations, and affidavits with exhibits; and statements of undisputed material facts pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, which together reflect the following factual background. I. Plaintiff’s Employment and Termination Plaintiff began employment with Crawford, a company specializing in loss adjusting and third-party administration of insurance claims, on February 5, 2018. At the time, he was 67 years old. Plaintiff worked as a property claims adjuster and was assigned to handle claims in Crawford’s “Central New York” territory. Plaintiff worked exclusively on property adjustment claims because he did not have the experience or training to conduct liability and casualty adjusting work. Central New York is part of Crawford’s “Northeast Region,” which covers New York and northern New Jersey. Central New York accounts for approximately eight-to-ten percent of the volume of claims Crawford receives in the Northeast Region. Plaintiff shared this territory with another property claims adjuster, Carmine Valvano, who was 62 years old and had worked for Crawford for approximately thirty-seven years at the time of plaintiff’s hire. Plaintiff was supervised by Richard Barbolt, who was approximately 64 years old at the time of plaintiff’s hire. Beginning in September 2019, defendant Bethea, Managing Director for the Northeast Region, supervised Barbolt. Bethea was 54 years old when Crawford hired her in September 2019. In December 2018, approximately ten months after plaintiff was hired, Crawford considered terminating his employment as part of a reduction in force (“RIF”). (See Doc. #42-4 (“2018 RIF Request”) at ECF 1; see also Doc. #42 (“Bethea Decl.”) 14).1 Crawford considered terminating plaintiff because a “model for New York property claims shows that the unit is over staffed by one employee” and plaintiff had “the lowest production in the territory.” (2018 RIF Request at ECF 1; Bethea Decl. 14). Bethea’s predecessor, Lou Kazman (48 years old), prepared a “RIF Packet Request” on December 19, 2018, which stated: [Plaintiff] is one of five new hires in 2018 and those hired later than him have higher production. Vincent started with Crawford in February and his monthly revenue averages $7,300. John Schaefer Jr. started in January and averages $11,700. Steven Tomasian started in August and averages $16,000. Jacqueline Neville started in September and averages $9,100. Frederick Bell started in October and averages $17,000. Carmino Valvano, Carla Burroughs and Jacqueline Neville will be able to absorb the claim assignments that Vincent normally receives. (2018 RIF Request at ECF 1). The 2018 RIF Request indicated eight of the nine property adjusters assigned to the Northeast Region were above forty years of age. (See 2018 RIF Request at ECF 1-2 (listing ages of the nine property adjusters (in age order) as 39, 43, 46, 47, 47, 55, 60, 62, 68)). Crawford ultimately did not terminate plaintiff’s employment at that time. Instead, on January 9, 2019, Kellie Parham, a Human Resources employee at Crawford, sent plaintiff an email stating: “As discussed, Crawford…is realigning its organizational structure. Your position as a [salaried] Property Adjuster is being eliminated and you are being offered the role of a 35 percent commissioned adjuster instead.” (Doc. #42-5 (“Commission Email”) at ECF 2) (brackets in original). Accepting the new role would entail a salary reduction from $65,000 to $48,750. (Id. at ECF 2; Doc. #41-1 (“Finiza Dep. Tr.”) at 56).2 Plaintiff was given seven days to decide whether to accept the commissioned role or to opt for a “severance package.” (Commission Email at ECF 3). Plaintiff accepted a role as the commissioned property claims adjuster on January 14, 2019. On February 27, 2019, plaintiff’s first performance evaluation was conducted. The review period covered the start of plaintiff’s employment in February 2018 through December 31, 2018, and evaluated plaintiff’s performance on several different measures, such as job knowledge, quality of work, quantity of work, driving exceptional customer service, planning and organizing, judgment and problem solving, communicating, and modeling accountability and speed. (Doc. #42-3 ( “2018 Performance Review”) at ECF 3-4). Although plaintiff’s “Total Self Rating” on these factors was a 3.87 out of 5, his “Total Manager Rating” — i.e., the rating given by Barbolt, plaintiff’s supervisor — was a 2.87 out of 5. (Id. at ECF 4). The review stated plaintiff’s “strength lies in his great customer service instincts…[and] depth of knowledge in the remediation field.” (Id. at ECF 5). However, it also stated plaintiff’s productivity was ranked the lowest of all property adjusters, his “understanding of the claims process does not always translate into his written work product which is often lacking the necessary detail required to document his position,” and he “continues to struggle with generating an efficiency that would allow him to be productive.” (Id.) On January 7, 2020, plaintiff’s second performance review was conducted, which covered the period from January 1 through December 31, 2019. In this review, Barbolt noted plaintiff’s “PSR Full File Audit score of 95 percent is evidence of a quality work product,” but that certain of his performance metrics “would…benefit from an improvement” because they were “slowing down the entire process.” (Doc. #42-6 (“2019 Performance Review”) at ECF 2). Barbolt also noted plaintiff “generated $84,802 in revenue achieving a 45 percent if [sic] his budget objective” but had been “handicapped in this regard with a lack of volume in his service area and his territory has since been expanded to include parts of the NY Metro area to compensate going forward.” (Id. at ECF 3).3 He received a Manager Rating of having “Partially Achieved Expected Results” with respect to his goals, as having “Fully Achieved Expected Results” on his competencies, and as having “Fully Achieved Expected Results” on his goals and competencies combined. (Id. at ECF 4, 6). In the comments section of the review form, Barbolt again emphasized plaintiff’s customer service strengths, and noted plaintiff had “demonstrated his willingness and ability to learn this craft and blend it with his former experience.” (2019 Performance Review at ECF 7). But Barbolt also noted plaintiff’s “customer service instincts are derived from experience outside claims handling and sometimes interfere with the development of the work product on behalf of our client.” (Id.) Barbolt further stated “[w]ith only 5 years of actual claims handling experience there is considerable room for improvement in the quality of his reporting, which tends to be scarce on detail, and his generation of an independent Estimate based on his own evaluation of a damage scenario.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends he never turned down claims assignments, had no say as to the geographic areas to which he was assigned, and “there were many times when [he] asked [his] superiors to assign [him] more claims.” (Pl. Aff.
