OPINION & ORDER Dante Edoardo Daly (“Plaintiff”) presses claims against his former employer, the Westchester County Board of Legislators (“BOL” or “Defendant”), associated with the termination of his employment in March 2018.1 Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on May 20, 2019. (Doc. 2, “Compl.”). On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) with leave of the Court. (Doc. 33, “FAC”). Days later and with the Court’s permission, on February 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), the operative pleading. (Doc. 35, “SAC”). Plaintiff alleges that the BOL discriminated against him in violation of: (1) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.; (2) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”), 29 U.S.C. §701, et seq.; (3) the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §2601, et seq.; (4) the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §296, et seq.; (5) the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), New York City Admin. Code §8-101, et seq.; and (6) “All Applicable New York State Laws.” (Id. at 4). The alleged disabilities (or perceived disabilities) underlying Plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims are “Severe Musculoskeletal Disorder, lumbar disc disease, coronary artery disease, [and] osteoarthritis of the bilateral hips.” (Id.). The Court, in a January 22, 2021 Memorandum Opinion and Order, partially granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the SAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissing all claims except for “Plaintiff’s ADA discrimination, Rehabilitation Act discrimination, and Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims.” (Doc. 56).2 Defendant filed an Answer to the SAC on February 19, 2021, and the case proceeded to discovery. (Doc. 67). Discovery on the three remaining claims closed on April 15, 2022. (Doc. 160). Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment, pursuant to the briefing schedule set forth by the Court, on December 21, 2022. (Doc. 185, “56.1 Stmt.”; Doc. 197; Doc. 198, “Micciche Decl.”; Doc. 199, “Def. Br.”). Plaintiff filed his opposition (Doc. 200, “Pl. Br.”; Doc. 201, “Santos Decl. I”; Doc. 202, “Pl. Aff.”; Doc. 203, “Santos Decl. II”), and the motion was fully briefed with the filing of Defendant’s reply (Doc. 204, “Reply”). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. BACKGROUND The Court recites the facts herein only to the extent necessary to adjudicate the extant motion for summary judgment and draws them from the pleadings, Defendant’s Rule 56.1 Statement and Plaintiff’s responses thereto, and the admissible evidence proffered by the parties. Unless otherwise indicated, the facts cited herein are undisputed.3 The BOL is the legislative branch of Westchester County. (56.1 Stmt. 2). During all relevant periods, the BOL was “one hundred percent funded by County tax revenues” and “did not receive any federal funding.” (Id.
2-3).4 Former BOL Chairman Michael Kaplowitz (“Kaplowitz”) hired Daly in September 2014 to serve as the BOL’s Director of Fiscal Affairs. (Id. 22). Plaintiff’s employment with the BOL was at-will. (Id. 24). Plaintiff was responsible for various budgetary and financial analyses, including capital budget and contract review. (Id. 27). Plaintiff’s position also required that he attend various meetings, some of which occurred at locations other than the County offices located at 148 Martine Avenue. (Id. 28). For most of Plaintiff’s tenure with the BOL, he reported directly to Kaplowitz and Kaplowitz’s Chief of Staff, Gary Friedman (“Friedman”). (Id. 31). Plaintiff also received assignments from BOL staff member Tara Bernard (“Bernard”). (Id.). Throughout Plaintiff’s tenure, Kaplowitz received frequent complaints about Plaintiff’s job performance, including concerns over “a perceived lack of substantive grasp of the job, and the value Plaintiff added to the BOL.” (Id. 32).5 Kaplowitz, Friedman, Bernard, and Malika Vanderberg (“Vanderberg”) — the BOL’s Clerk and Chief Administrative Officer — discussed terminating Plaintiff’s employment on several occasions. (Id. 33). Kaplowitz did not terminate Plaintiff, notwithstanding the complaints he received about his job performance, due to the fact that Plaintiff had a young family and a child. (Id. 35). Rather than terminate Plaintiff, some of his budgetary analysis responsibilities were given to Anna Champeny (“Champeny”), who was hired in September 2014 as Plaintiff’s Deputy Director of Financial Affairs. (Id.
