SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Maurice Louis, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment entered on September 2, 2011, pursuant to its memorandum and order dated September 1, 2011, granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee Brooklyn Botanic Gardens (“BBG”). Louis’s complaint of November 18, 2010, alleged claims against BBG, Louis’s former employer, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e ei see/. Specifically, the complaint alleged claims of, inter alia, discrimination based on Louis’s race and national origin, retaliatory termination, and hostile work environment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Upon de novo review of the district court’s grant of summary judgment, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in Louis’s favor, we conclude that the district court correctly held that no genuine issues of material fact existed for trial and that BBG was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100, 104-05 (2d Cir. 2011).

Even assuming Louis had established a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), BBG offered a legitimate non-diseriminatory reason for terminating Louis — its deteriorating financial condition had resulted in layoffs and the elimination of seventeen positions — and Louis, as the district court found, did not present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that this reason was pretextual. See McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92, 96 (2d Cir. 2009). In addition, with respect to his claim of retaliatory termination, Louis failed to show that an issue of fact existed as to the alleged causal connection between the filing of his grievance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and his dismissal because the record plainly showed that BBG decided to terminate Louis’s position more than two weeks before he filed his grievance. See Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 141 (2d Cir. 2003); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Finally, as to Louis’s hostile work environment claim, Louis failed to present evidence from which a jury could find that his “workplace [was] permeated with ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult’ ... ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment.’ ” See Redd v. N.Y. Div. of Parole, 678 F.3d 166, 175 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)).

We have considered Louis’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.