ORDER & OPINION Plaintiff Maureen M. Billings (“Plaintiff”) brings this action for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e (“Title VII”), the First and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983″), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12112 (“ADA”), and N.Y. Executive Law §296. Plaintiff previously raised these claims in her Amended Complaint, which was dismissed without prejudice on September 10, 2021. Plaintiff has amended each of her claims and continues to assert them against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), Deputy Superintendent for Security Roger A. Murphy, Captain Paul J. Artuz, and Lieutenant Diane Curra, alleging that they discriminated and retaliated against her as a Muslim woman suffering from diabetes and stress-related impairments. Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 46.) For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 40) and are accepted as true for purposes of this motion. Plaintiff is a practicing Muslim woman who, in compliance with her faith, wears a hijab in public. (Second Am. Compl. 17.) Plaintiff also has diabetes. (Id. 10.) Plaintiff is employed as a Corrections Officer with the New York State Department of Corrections at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. (Id. 18.) On October 14, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Diversity Management Office requesting permission to wear a hijab at work. (Id. 19.) In a letter dated April 16, 2016, Plaintiff was granted her accommodation request to wear a hijab, subject to certain conditions outlined in that letter, including that (1) the hijab must be tucked under her uniform shirt, (2) the hijab must be no larger than three feet by three feet, and (3) it must be worn in a way that it would immediately tear away should anyone try to grab it. (Id. 22.) The letter stated that prior to letting her wear a hijab, the Deputy Superintendent of Security (Defendant Murphy) had to confirm that Plaintiff’s hijab met these approved specifications. (Id.) The Diversity Management Office stated that a supervisor would meet with Plaintiff to have her demonstrate that the hijab met the requirements laid out in her approval letter. (Id. 23.) The Diversity Management Office also stated that if she indicated she could not remove the hijab in front of other people, she would be provided with a private area to remove it, or told to leave and come back with it available for inspection. (Id.) On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff was ordered to report to Defendant Murphy’s office. (Id. 26.) Plaintiff was accompanied by a female union representative. (Id. 27.) Defendant Murphy reprimanded Plaintiff for wearing her hijab at work without first consulting him, and instructed her to tuck it into her shirt (as per the approved specifications). (Id. 28.) Plaintiff explained she did not consult with him or any other supervisors because there were no high-ranking supervisors on duty over the weekend, and that it would have been violative of her religious beliefs to not wear her hijab to work. (Id. 29.) On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff was ordered to report to Defendant Artuz’s office, again accompanied by a female union representative. (Id.
31-32.) Defendant Artuz stated her hijab needed to be three feet by three feet in size. (Id. 38.) Plaintiff asked for the directive that stated this rule, and Defendant Artuz responded that she could “like it or take it off.” (Id. 39.) Plaintiff and the union representative then cut down the hijab outside of Defendant Artuz’s presence. (Id. 40.) Defendant Artuz then stated that Plaintiff had three options if she wanted to wear the hijab in the prison: (1) take the hijab off and go to work, (2) keep the hijab on, go home and “deal with the consequences,” or (3) demonstrate that the hijab could be pulled off quickly without choking her. (Id. 43.) Plaintiff stated she could perform the demonstration in front of a female supervisor, as her religion prohibits her from disrobing in front of men outside of her immediate family. (Id. 45.) Defendant Artuz insisted Plaintiff remove her hijab in front of him as there were no female supervisors available. (Id. 46.) Plaintiff then removed her hijab in front of Defendant Artuz. (Id. 49.) There were two female supervisors on duty at that time. (Id. 47.) After this meeting, Plaintiff felt faint and experienced disorientation, poor balance, and weakness in her limbs. (Id. 52.) While walking back to her post, Plaintiff had an anxiety attack and her knee “buckled” twice, causing her to fall. (Id.
