Duviella challenges the process used by JetBlue to investigate sexual harassment allegations against him, and he disputes the accuracy of the conclusions reached. “In a discrimination case, however, we are decidedly not interested in the truth of the allegations against plaintiff. We are interested in what ‘motivated the employer.’ ” McPherson v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 457 F.3d 211, 216 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983) (emphasis omitted)). Duviella has not adduced any evidence tending to demonstrate that JetBlue’s procedures or sanctions were influenced by his age or race. This is fatal to his discharge claim. See, e.g., Graham v. Long Island, R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 44 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp., 72
holding that the plaintiffs assessment of the candidates qualifications cannot demonstrate a pretext for discrimination holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that even if plaintiff could demonstrate that failed drug test proffered by defendant as ground for dismissal was in error that showing would not demonstrate that reliance on test was pretext for discrimination holding the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate the error satisfies each prong of the plain error test holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error