Alternatively, assuming that defendant's conduct under certain circumstances could be deemed actionable employment discrimination, here, defendant met its prima facie burden of demonstrating that there is no evidentiary route that could allow a jury to believe that discrimination played a role in its challenged actions (see Golston-Green v City of New York, 184 AD3d at 39; Persaud v Walgreens Co., 161 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2018]; Bull v Metropolitan Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 152 AD3d 639, 641 [2017]; Moise v Uptown Communications & Elec., Inc., 134 AD3d 782, 783 [2015]; Reyes v Brinks Global Servs. USA, Inc., 112 AD3d 805, 806 [2013]; Furfero v St. John's Univ., 94 AD3d 695, 699 [2012]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact by coming forward with evidence that the stated reasons were pretextual or that discrimination was one of the motivating factors for the conduct at issue (see Golston-Green v City of New York, 184 AD3d at 40; Ellison v Chartis Claims, Inc., 178 AD3d at 669; Persaud v Walgreens Co., 161 AD3d at 1020; Bull v Metropolitan Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 152 AD3d at 641; Moise v Uptown Communications & Elec., Inc., 134 AD3d at 783; Reyes v Brinks Global Servs. USA, Inc., 112 AD3d at 806).