To establish entitlement to summary judgment in a case alleging discrimination, the defendants must demonstrate either the plaintiff’s inability to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether that reason was pretextual (see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305; Michno v. New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens, 71 AD3d 746, 746–747). Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the third cause of action, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, by demonstrating the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was terminated under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at 305–307; Smith v. Paris Intl. Corp., 267 A.D.2d 223, 224). Neither coarse comments made by McGowan in instructing the plaintiff that her attire was unacceptable nor two comments allegedly made by an individual uninvolved in the decision to terminate the plaintiff’s employment gave rise to such an inference (see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at 308). Further, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff’s termination—dissatisfaction with her performance—was not a pretext for discrimination (see Dzikowski v. J.J. Burns & Co., LLC, 98 AD3d 468, 469). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The defendants also established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the first cause of action, alleging the existence of a hostile work environment, by demonstrating that the conduct and remarks about which the plaintiff complained were not sufficiently severe or pervasive as to permeate the workplace and alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s employment (see LaMarca–Pagano v. Dr. Steven Phillips, P.C., 129 AD3d 918; Chiara v. Town of New Castle, 126 AD3d 111, 126; Thompson v. Lamprecht Trans., 39 AD3d 846, 847). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.