OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Chaya Wieder (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on September 27, 2021, alleging violations of Section 1981 (“Section 1981″) of the Civil Rights Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) against Defendants Garnet Health f/k/a Greater Hudson Valley System (“Garnet Health”), Garnet Health Medical Center f/k/a Orange Regional Medical Center (“GHMC”), and Erica Burgos (“Burgos”) (all together, the “Defendants”). Presently before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56. For the following reasons, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. BACKGROUND Defendants submitted a brief, a statement of material fact pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, and the record and exhibits from discovery in the instant proceeding, which reflect the following factual background. Plaintiff, represented by Counsel, chose to submit neither a Rule 56.1 statement nor a counterstatement to Defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement. A “nonmoving party’s failure to respond to a Rule 56.1 statement permits the court to conclude the facts asserted in the statement are uncontested and admissible…[i]n the typical case, failure to respond results in a grant of summary judgment once the court assures itself that Rule 56′s other requirements have been met.” T.Y. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 584 F.3d 412, 417-418 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Gubitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30, Note 1 (2d Cir. 1998); Suares v. Cityscape Tours, Inc., 603 F. App’x 16, 18 2d Cir. 2015). Therefore, the following uncontested and admitted facts are derived from the record and Defendants’ unopposed Rule 56.1 statement, as supported by evidence in the record. Plaintiff, an Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic woman, was hired as a full-time, hourly Inpatient Coder at GHMC in April 2017. (Defendants’ Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Defs.’ 56.1″) 12, ECF No. 68.) As part of her hiring, Plaintiff signed a Remote Access Policy agreement wherein GMHC stated that “[r]emote connection to [the] network may be monitored to record dates, times, duration of access, etc. in order to identify unusual usage patterns or other suspicious activity.” (Defs’ 56.1 2.) GHMC maintains a Standard of Performance and Behavior Policy which detailed violations that could serve as the basis of immediate discharge, such as “[t]heft, misappropriation, unauthorized possession or use of property belonging to the Hospital, patient, visitor or theft of time.” (Id. 1.) GHMC also maintains a Punctuality Policy which stipulates that “[e]mployee punctuality is essential in the delivery of quality healthcare and customer service.” (Id. 5.) Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of all of GHMC’s employment policies and standards at the outset of her employment with GHMC. (Id. 28.) During the interview process, Plaintiff was interviewed by Rachel Roeber (“Roeber”), Erica Burgos (“Burgos”), and Monica Tyiska (“Tyiska”). (Id. 8.) Plaintiff expressed the need to observe Jewish holidays but did not specify which dates she would want to take off during the interview. (Id. 9.) Plaintiff further expressed during the interview her desire to work remotely and have a flexible schedule; Roeber advised Plaintiff that a flexible working schedule might be possible, but that GHMC would need Plaintiff to communicate with Clinical Data Integration (“CDI”) during certain hours of the day. (Id 10.) Neither Roeber, Tyiska nor Burgos expressed any concerns or hesitancy to hire Plaintiff due to her need for flexibility, remote work, and observance of Jewish holidays. (Id. 11.) Plaintiff was specifically hired as a full-time, hourly Inpatient Coder at GHMC, scheduled to work seventy-five hours. (Id.
12-12.) Plaintiff’s responsibilities included coding inpatient charts, working within platforms EPIC and Chartwise. (Id.
