law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002). This Court has analyzed plaintiffs’ ADEA claims by applying a burden-shifting framework. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). “To establish a prima facie case of age
holding race and gender discrimination claim barred holding that the same standard applies to claims of discrimination based upon gender and age holding that a plaintiff could not assert a  1981 claim based on gender discrimination holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her gender discrimination claim because she only checked the boxes for age discrimination and retaliation holding that same standard applies to equal pay act and title vii wage discrimination claims