129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). Thus, having carefully reviewed the record as a whole, and having drawn all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor, the Court concludes that these isolated comments purportedly made by one principal and one assistant principal, in which they allegedly apologized to plaintiff for making her walk up stairs, are insufficient to raise an inference of disability discrimination. See, e.g., Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 545 (3d Cir.1992) (“Stray remarks by non-decisionmakers or by decisionmakers unrelated to the decision process are rarely given great weight, particularly if they were made temporally remote from the date of decision.”); Georgy v. O’Neill, No. 00 Civ. 0660, 2002 WL 449723, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2002) (<HOLDING>); Corcoran v. GAB Bus. Servs., Inc., 723
holding accent discrimination may be actionable as national origin discrimination under title vii citing with approval eeoc guidelines defining national origin discrimination to include discrimination based on the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group holding that alleged reference to national origin by nondecisionmaker six months prior to plaintiffs termination was the kind of isolated stray remark insufficient without more to raise an inference of discrimination and defeat summary judgment holding that an isolated derogatory remark did not create an inference of discrimination recognizing that stray remarks are insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination and concluding that a comment by the decisionmaker that he selected a candidate for a promotion because the candidate was a bright intelligent knowledgeable young man was a stray remark that did not raise an inference of age discrimination holding that an isolated remark made by the plaintiffs supervisor lacked a sufficient nexus to the plaintiffs termination several months later