employer's proffered explanation for its adverse action need not be one that is desirable or attractive. Instead, what matters is that it explains the action taken against members of a protected group on some basis other than their membership in that group. See Fischbach v. D.C. Dep’t. of Corrections, 86 F.3d 1180, 1183 (D.C.Cir.1996) (“Once the employer has articulated a non-discriminatory explanation for its action, ... the issue is not the correctness or desirability of the reasons offered ... but whether die employer honestly believes in the reasons it offers.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 15 . See Freedman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 255 F.3d 840, 848 (D.C.Cir.2001) ("[A] singular stray comment does not a hostile work environment make."); Neuren, 43 F.3d at 1513 (<HOLDING>). 16 . Indeed, plaintiffs complained to Smith
holding that a supervisors use of the term bitch in a written evaluation when viewed in context was possibly inappropriately phrased but not  conclusive of sex discrimination holding race and gender discrimination claim barred holding that a plaintiff could not assert a  1981 claim based on gender discrimination holding that the term bitch does not invariably indicate gender discrimination holding that the same standard applies to claims of discrimination based upon gender and age