SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Hongmian Gong appeals from a judgment of the district court, entered on March 27, 2020, in favor of her employer, City University of New York (“CUNY”). Gong, an Asian American professor of geography at CUNY Hunter College, brought this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq, alleging discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. We assume the readers familiarity with the record.
In fall 2017, CUNY removed Gong from the graduate advisor and fellowship coordinator positions at the university. CUNY says that it decided to remove her based on its finding pursuant to an investigation that Gong mismanaged graduate student funds. But Gong claims that CUNY has long discriminated against her because of her race and national origin, including by delaying her professorship promotions, assigning her to teach two courses on East Asian and Chinese geography, directing her to hold evening office hours for graduate advising while Caucasian faculty members who also advised graduate students were not similarly required, replacing her with a Caucasian adjunct professor on a search committee, and organizing a faculty meeting that included presentations criticizing certain actions by the Peoples Republic of China, particularly in the South China Sea. The district court dismissed Gongs discrimination and hostile work environment claims, finding that Gongs allegations did not raise a plausible inference of discrimination or rise to the level of pervasive and severe conduct that altered the conditions of her employment. See Gong v. City Univ. of New York, No. 18-CV-3027, 2019 WL 952340, at *4, *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2019) (“Gong I”). The court also granted CUNY summary judgment on Gongs retaliation claim, finding that CUNY had articulated a legitimate reason for Gongs removal, and that Gong had failed to show that CUNYs proffered reason was a pretext for retaliation. See Gong v. City Univ. of New York, No. 18-CV-3027, 2020 WL 1467353, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020) (“Gong II”). This appeal followed.
We review the grant of a motion to dismiss and of summary judgment de novo. Aegis Ins. Servs., Inc. v. 7 World Trade Co., 737 F.3d 166, 176 (2d Cir. 2013). When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we “accept[ ] all factual claims in the complaint as true and draw[ ] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” United States v. Strock, 982 F.3d 51, 58 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we must “construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party” and find that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” ING Bank N.V. v. M/V TEMARA, 892 F.3d 511, 518 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
We affirm the district courts February 27, 2019, dismissal of Gongs discrimination and hostile work environment claims. See Gong I, 2019 WL 952340 at *9. Gongs discrimination claim fails because Gong did not adequately allege that her race or national origin was a motivating factor in CUNYs decision to remove her from the graduate advisor and fellowship coordinator positions. See Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 86 (2d Cir. 2015) (“[A] plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) the employer took adverse action against h[er] and (2) h[er] race, color, religion, sex or national origin was a motivating factor in the employment decision.”). Gong claims that the district court failed to consider how all the alleged incidents together give rise to a plausible inference of discrimination. But Gongs complaint does not identify the “bits and pieces of information” necessary “to support an inference of discrimination, i.e., a mosaic of intentional discrimination” in relation to the adverse employment action at issue. See id. at 86 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For many of the alleged incidents, Gong does not explain how they are connected to her race or national origin. The allegations that are related to Gongs race or national origin—for example, Gongs course assignments, being replaced on a search committee, being directed to hold evening office hours, and the faculty meeting—are not connected to her removal from the graduate advisor and fellowship coordinator positions and fail to “provide a contextual basis for inferring discrimination” for that decision. See id. at 89; see also Henry v. Wyeth Pharm., Inc., 616 F.3d 134, 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[T]he more remote and oblique the remarks are in relation to the employers adverse action, the less they prove that the action was motivated by discrimination.”). Gongs allegations, viewed together, do not plausibly give rise to an inference that her race or national origin were motivating factors in CUNYs decision to remove her as a graduate advisor and fellowship coordinator.
Similarly, Gongs hostile work environment claim fails because the alleged incidents are too mild and “episodic” to support her claim. Raspardo v. Carlone, 770 F.3d 97, 114 (2d Cir. 2014) (“The incidents complained of ‘must be more than episodic; they must be sufficiently continuous and concerted in order to be deemed pervasive.’ ” (quoting Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365, 374 (2d Cir. 2002))). Again, many of the alleged incidents lack any racial overtone and, in general, the alleged incidents “were too few, too separate in time, and too mild ․ to create an abusive working environment.” Alfano, 294 F.3d at 380. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Gongs discrimination and hostile work environment claims. Nor did it err in declining to sua sponte grant Gong an opportunity to amend her complaint. See Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d 364, 369 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[N]o court can be said to have erred in failing to grant a request that was not made.”); see also Porat v. Lincoln Towers Cmty. Assn, 464 F.3d 274, 276 (2d Cir. 2006) (“A counseled plaintiff is not necessarily entitled to a remand for repleading whenever he has indicated a desire to amend his complaint, notwithstanding the failure of plaintiffs counsel to make a showing that the complaints defects can be cured.”).
We also affirm the district courts March 25, 2020, decision granting CUNY summary judgment on Gongs retaliation claim. See Gong II, 2020 WL 1467353 at *4; see also Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834, 844–46 (2d Cir. 2013) (explaining that under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation; then the defendant must offer a non-retaliatory reason for the employment action; and then the plaintiff must show that the retaliatory reason is a “but-for cause of [the] adverse employment action,” which she can do by—for example—demonstrating that the non-retaliatory reason is pretextual). The record shows that CUNY did not learn about Gongs complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) until after it decided to remove her from the graduate advisor and fellowship coordinator positions, and thus CUNY could not have made the decision in retaliation for the EEOC complaint. See id. at 844 (explaining that to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, “a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action” (internal quotation marks omitted)). But even assuming that CUNY knew about Gongs complaint before deciding to remove her, CUNY proffers a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for Gongs removal: the university found that Gong had mismanaged graduate student funds and neglected her responsibilities as an advisor. Gong challenges the legitimacy of CUNYs documents related to its decision-making process and argues that the timeline of her EEOC complaint and removal is exceedingly suspect. “Temporal proximity alone is insufficient to defeat summary judgment at the pretext stage.” Kwan, 737 F.3d at 847. Although some of the irregularities that Gong points out in CUNYs documents—such as the Appeals Committees report—are troubling, Gong has not met her burden of producing “sufficient evidence to demonstrate that” Gong would not have been removed from the graduate advisor and fellowship coordinator positions “in the absence of the retaliatory motive.” Id. at 842, 846. Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment on Gongs retaliation claim.
We have considered Gongs remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.