result does not show the falsity of the proffered nondiscriminatory reason for the promotion decisions. See Davis v. State Univ. of N.Y., 802 F.2d 638, 641 (2d Cir.1986) (“The employer need not prove that the person promoted had superior objective qualifications, or that it made the wisest choice, but only that the reasons for the decision were nondiscriminatory.”); see also Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93, 103 (2d Cir.2001) ( , 94 (2d Cir.2001) (requiring a showing of causation as an element of a prima facie retaliation case). Kearney’s equal protection claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for age-based employment discrimination fails for the same reasons that her ADEA and NYSHRL claims fail. See Sorlucco v. N.Y. City Police Dep’t, 888 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Halloway v. Milwaukee County, 180 F.3d 820,
holding that the mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting framework applies to retaliation claims in the same manner as to discrimination claims holding that burdenshifting analysis applies to handicap discrimination as well holding that mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting approach applies to claims brought under the adea holding that the mcdonnell douglas framework applies equally to ada and rehabilitation act cases holding that the threestep mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting analysis applies to  1983 claims