finding no casual connection where there was a four month gap between the protected activity and the adverse action
Summary of this case from Brenes v. City of New YorkNos. 99-9266, 99-9418.
Filed May 15, 2000.
Appeal from S.D.N.Y.
Affirmed.
finding no casual connection where there was a four month gap between the protected activity and the adverse action
Summary of this case from Brenes v. City of New Yorkdiscussing inconsistency within Second Circuit on fourth element of theMcDonnell Douglas test
Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. New York City Housing AuthorityFull title:Leonard v. Garantia Banking Ltd
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Date published: May 15, 2000
To the contrary, there is evidence in the record that Home Depot's stated reasons for terminating Anderson,…
In re Artisanal 2015, LLCThere is no dispute that § 16.2 of the Lease creates a conditional limitation, and that if properly…