Horwath v. DHD Windows & Doors, LLC

4 Citing cases

  1. Yager v. Cnty. of Erie

    No. 21-CV-68S (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2025)

    To that end, the plaintiff must produce “evidence from which it can reasonably be inferred that the challenged adverse action would not have occurred absent age-based animus.” Horwath v. DHD Windows and Doors, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-1422 (CSH), 2020 WL 3316560, at *9 (D. Conn. June 17, 2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

  2. Key v. City of Detroit

    Civil Action 22-10849 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 26, 2024)

    While Key's testimony might be viewed more favorably by the trier of fact if it is corroborated by phone records, the City has cited no case law for the proposition that such additional evidence is necessary to create a question of fact, and, indeed, courts have held that a plaintiff's testimony alone can be sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext.See, e.g., Horwath v. DHD Windows and Doors, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-1422 (CSH), 2020 WL 3316560, at *29 (D. Conn. June 17, 2020) (testimony presented by plaintiff about supervisor's discriminatory remarks, while disputed, creates a question of material fact as to whether the proffered reason for the plaintiff's termination was a pretext for discrimination) (citing Miller v. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., No. 07cv00364 (PCD), 2009 WL 347567, at *8 (D. Conn. Feb. 11, 2009) (noting that, at the pretext stage, “[a]lthough Defendant disputes the testimony concerning [the plaintiff's supervisor's] comments and both sides question the credibility of the other's witnesses, credibility is a question for the jury”)).

  3. Desio v. Singh

    19 Civ. 3954 (JCM) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2021)   Cited 5 times

    Dumbuya's role as Plaintiffs supervisor and the primary decisionmaker behind the FWW and her termination renders his remarks "more probative of discrimination." See, e.g., Horwath v. DHD Windows and Doors, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-1422 (CSH), 2020 WL 3316560, at *18 (D. Conn. June 17, 2020).

  4. Kleyman v. Suny Downstate Med. Ctr.

    18-CV-3137 (PKC) (ST) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2020)   Cited 8 times

    While the emails and comments Plaintiff points to do show a lack of enthusiasm for re-admitting Plaintiff, and certainly demonstrate Defendant SUNY's limited experience in accommodating surgical residents with disabilities, they do not create an issue of fact with respect to her termination following her return to residency, which occurred years later.See Horwath v. DHD Windows & Doors, LLC, No. 18-CV-1422 (CSH), 2020 WL 3316560, at *19 (D. Conn. June 17, 2020) ("There is no bright line rule regarding the length of time that renders an allegedly discriminatory remark too attenuated to constitute evidence of discrimination[, however,] courts in this Circuit have found that a three-month lapse between alleged discriminatory statements and an adverse employment action is too long a gap to find the remark probative of discrimination." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).