DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Pro se Plaintiff Yulonda Woods-Early brings this employment-discrimination action against Defendant Corning Incorporated, her former employer. Presently before the Court is Corning’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 73. Despite receiving several extensions of time and notices of the consequences for failing to respond, Plaintiff has not filed a timely response. See ECF Nos. 73, 75, 92, 100. For the reasons that follow, Corning’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). BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the summary judgment record. Corning operates in the “specialty glass, ceramics, and life science industries.” ECF No. 73-1 1. In summer 2007, Corning hired Plaintiff through its informal “Dual Career Program,” whereby “Corning attempts to hire spouses of key salaried employees who have relocated to the Corning area.” ECF No. 73-26 10. In Plaintiff’s case, Corning created a position for her — known as “Market Consultant I” — within the Technology Strategy Group in its “Science & Technology” (“S&T”) organization. Id.; ECF No. 73-31 at 2 (copy of job description). Corning did so despite the fact that S&T is a “highly technical” department that “primarily recruits and hires individuals with technical educational backgrounds, such as science and engineering,” and Plaintiff, who possesses a Ph.D. in economics, did not have the requisite education or prior work experience. Id.
6-7, 10. Corning created this position because Plaintiff’s husband was employed in S&T and because Plaintiff had expressed a desire “to work in a marketing role.” Id. 10; ECF No. 73-29 at 2. At the time, S&T did not otherwise have any positions matching Plaintiff’s educational background and work experience. ECF No. 73-8 5. Initially, Plaintiff reported to Peter M. Grittner, the Research Director of Technology Strategy, ECF No. 73-31 26, but she was transferred to work under Pamela Strollo, Director of Administration within S&T, in July 2008. When a dispute arose between Strollo and Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff’s 2009 performance review, Charles Craig — Senior Vice President of S&T — transferred Plaintiff to work under his supervision. ECF No. 73-8 11. Plaintiff began working under Craig in September 2010. See id. 12. Plaintiff did not receive assignments directly from Craig’s “work stream,” as his department did not “perform market research functions (and did not otherwise have a need for Plaintiff’s skillset).” Id. Instead, Plaintiff obtained assignments from other departments “where she could potentially add value and work product.”1 Id. Craig’s hope “was that these [departments] would find value in Plaintiff’s skill set and offer her a position within their department or organization in the future.” Id. Craig and Plaintiff “initially got along well.” Id. 13. In August 2011, Craig promoted Plaintiff to Market Consultant II, which included an increased salary and a $5,000 bonus. Id. 13. Plaintiff received a salary “merit” increase in March 2012. ECF No. 73-7 at 61 [hereinafter "Pl. Dep."]. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s workload was “sporadic,” consisting of short-term market research assignments for a variety of individuals within different areas of Corning, and “no business leaders for whom Plaintiff provided project work ever offered her a position in their organizations or departments.” ECF No. 73-8 14. Beginning in 2013, Plaintiff’s assignments “significantly diminish[ed],” and from early 2013 to July 2014, Plaintiff had “nearly no work assignments at all.” Id. 15. Plaintiff expressed dissatisfaction with her role, which was outside “Corning’s traditional organizational structure for marketing positions.” Id.; see also Pl. Dep. at 59-60. Thereafter, Plaintiff, Craig, and Gary Pease (an HR director in S&T), worked to find Plaintiff an “alternative job placement within Corning.” ECF No. 73-8 15. They began contacting other Corning departments to find “areas of the company where Plaintiff could be of use.” Id. Craig went as far as to offer “to fund the salary for Plaintiff’s position directly…for a period of time in order to offset any [other departments'] budgetary constraints.” Id. 16. In 2013, Plaintiff applied to “several management-level roles…for which she was not hired.” Id. 19; ECF No. 73-32 at 2. Craig believed that Plaintiff was not “a competitive candidate for these roles” given her “relative inexperience (including lack of project management experience),” “unusual educational background,” and “minimal work experience to date.” ECF No. 73-8 19. Plaintiff’s relationship with Craig began to deteriorate, as Plaintiff perceived that Craig was not providing sufficient oversight, direction, or guidance to help her in her current role or in her career development. See Pl. Dep. at 116; ECF No. 73-22 at 5. For example, Plaintiff alleges that Craig forced her to obtain her own assignments, failed to meet with her, failed to complete annual performance reviews, and excluded her from his staff meetings. ECF No. 73-3
