that defendants were acting under color of state law. Thus, the question presented here is whether defendants’ conduct deprived plaintiff of her Equal Protection rights. For the reasons set forth infra, the Court concludes that plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find age discrimination in this case and, accordingly, grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim. a. Legal Standard Age-based employment discrimination claims brought pursuant to § 1983 are analyzed under the three-step, burden-shifting framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See Kearney v. Cnty. of Rockland ex rel. Vanderhoef 185 Fed.Appx. 68, 70 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Sorlucco v. N.Y.C. Police Dep’t, 888 F.2d 4,
holding that the threestep mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting analysis applies to  1983 claims holding that plaintiffs equal protection claim pursuant to 42 usc  1983 for agebased employment discrimination fails for the same reasons that her adea and nyshrl claims fail under mcdonnell douglas analysis holding that mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting approach applies to claims brought under the adea holding that claims under the adea and the nyshrl are subject to the same analysis holding that adea and phra claims proceed under the mcdonnell douglas framework