some alleged factual dispute between the parties” alone “will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (emphasis in original). Thus, the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere conclusory allegations or denials but must set forth “ ‘concrete particulars’ showing that a trial is needed.” R.G. Grp., Inc. v. Horn & Hardart Co., 751 F.2d 69, 77 (2d Cir.1984) (quoting SEC v. Research Automation Corp., 585 F.2d 31, 33 (2d Cir.1978)). Accordingly, it is insufficient for a party opposing summary judgment “ ‘merely to assert a conclusion witho 194-95 (2d Cir.2007) (ADEA claim); Mathirampuzha v. Potter, 548 F.3d 70, 78 (2d Cir.2008) (Title VII racial discrimination claim); Sorlucco v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't, 888 F.2d 4, 6-7 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Under this analysis, “a plaintiff ... has the
holding that mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting approach applies to claims brought under the adea holding that adea and phra claims proceed under the mcdonnell douglas framework holding that the mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting framework applies to retaliation claims in the same manner as to discrimination claims holding that threestep analysis outlined in mcdonnell douglas applies to claims brought under  1983 holding that the mcdonnell douglas framework applies equally to ada and rehabilitation act cases