
    Yaa ASANTE-ADDAE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SODEXO, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Eastern Connecticut Health Network, Defendant.
    No. 15-1377.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 22, 2016.
    Maria K. Tougas, Jacobs, Walker, Rice & Barry, LLC, Manchester, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    John G. Stretton (Kelly M, Cardin, on the brief), Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Stamford, CT, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, Circuit Judge, LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Loma G. Schofield, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Yaa Asante-Addae (“Asante”), a former employee of defendant-appellee Sodexo, Inc. (“Sodexo”), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Sodexo on her claims of employment discrimination, hostile work environment, and discriminatory retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, and her state-law claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Irby v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 262 F.3d 412, 413 (2d Cir.2001) (per curiam). However, even if we must draw inferences in her favor, the party opposing summary judgment may not rely on “speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts to overcome a motion for summary judgment.” Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 804 F.2d 9, 12 (2d Cir.1986).

Here, our review of the record and relevant case law shows that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Sodexo on all of Asante’s claims. We affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum of decision.

We have considered all of Asante’s arguments on this appeal and find that they lack merit. For the reasons given, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  