from this guard which, in combination, may suggest an ethnicity or national origin-based animosity predating the August incident. In light of these combined facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that Plaintiff was, in fact, selected either as the target, or at least the “subject,” of the call precisely because of his known ethnicity or national origin. As noted in the Report, it has long been settled that “[prisoners are protected under the Equal Protection Clause ... from invidious discrimination.” Report at 57 (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)). These rights, extend, for example, to claims based on denial of a right to participate in specific prison work assignments based on race. LaBounty v. Adler, 933 F.2d 121, 123 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In a recent decision, a district court relied
holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population holding a prisoner has no constitutional right to a job in prison holding that a prisoner has no constitutionallybased liberty interest in a particular prison classification  because an inmate is not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison holding that an inmate has no right to any particular prison job but prison officials cannot discriminate against him on the basis of his race in work assignments holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials