* The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as noted. 11-3748-cv Davis-Molinia v. Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTERJANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 28 thday of November, two thousand twelve.
Present: JOHN M. WALKER, PETER W. HALL, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges

.

________________________________________________ ELAINE B. DAVIS-MOLINIA, RALPH A. MOLINIA, Plaintiffs-Appellants , v. No. 11-3748-cv PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, ROBERT DURANDO, THERESA TESLER, OLGA KRUEGER, VICTORIA CROSS KELLY, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF JOURNEYMEN AND ALLIED TRADES, LOCAL 111S, PORT AUTHORITY OPERATIONS SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION, JAMES KEMBLE, Defendants-Appellees

. *

________________________________________________1 The individual employees named in the complaint were Robert Durando, Theresa Tesler, Olga Krueger, and Victoria Cross Kelly. 2 For Plaintiffs-Appellants: J AHA C. S MITH , Bronx, N.Y. For Defendants-Appellees Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Robert Durando, Theresa Tesler, Olga Krueger, and Victoria Cross: M EGAN L EE (James M. Begley, on the brief ), The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, N.Y. For Defendants-Appellees International Union of Journeymen and Allied Trades, Local Union 111S, Port Authority Operations Supervisors Association, and James Kemble: R ICHARD P. G ALLER , The Law Office of Richard P. Galler, LLC, Hackensack, N.J.
Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Southern District of New York (Daniels, J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF , it is hereby ORDERED , ADJUDGED , and DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED

. Plaintiffs-Appellants Elaine B. Davis-Molinia and Ralph A. Molinia, a married interracial couple, brought this discrimination action against their former employer, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the “P ort Authority”), and several of its individual employees 1 (collectively, the “Port Authority Defendant s”). Plaintiffs asserted claims against the Port Authority Defendants for disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Plaintiffs also asserted claims for race discrimination and unfair representation against the United Service Workers Union-International Union of Journeymen and Allied Trades, Local Union 111S, Port Authority2Plaintiffs do not appeal the dismissal of their claims against the individual Port Authority defendants or their retaliation claims against the Port Authority. 3 Operations Supervisors Association (the “Union”), and James Kemble, a Port Authority employee and the former chairman of the Union (collectively, the “Union Defendants”). In an August 19, 2011 Memorandum Decision and Order, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Daniels, J .) granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs now appeal from that portion of the district court’s Memorandum D ecision and Order dismissing plaintiffs’ claims against the Union Defendants and their claims against the Port Authority for racial discrimination and hostile work environment. 2We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case, as well as the issues on appeal. We review an award of summary judgment de novo , see El Sayed v. Hilton Hotels Corp. , 627 F.3d 931, 933 (2d Cir. 2010), and we will affirm only where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Having reviewed the record de novo , we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See Davis-Molinia v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , No. 08 CV 7584, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93868 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2011). Briefly stated, summary judgment was appropriate because, among other reasons, plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether (1) the Port Authority’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for denying plaintiffs “shift differential” pay were a pretext for discrimination, see Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ. , 584 F.3d 487, 499 (2d Cir. 2009); (2) the Port Authority’s purported conduct created an environment4 that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive because of plaintiffs’ membership in a protected class, see Patane v. Clark , 508 F.3d 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2007); or (3) the Union breached its duty of fair representation, see Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers , 34 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (2d Cir. 1994). Having considered all of plaintiffs’ arguments and finding them to be without merit, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED

. FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK