holding that causation was possible despite eleven-month lapse between protected activity and firing because defendant had possible reasons for delaying adverse action
Summary of this case from Cronin v. LawrenceNo. CV 92-4550 (RJD).
September 25, 1998.
holding that causation was possible despite eleven-month lapse between protected activity and firing because defendant had possible reasons for delaying adverse action
Summary of this case from Cronin v. Lawrenceholding that Greek-American had established prima facie case of national origin discrimination under Title VII
Summary of this case from Langadinos v. Appalachian School of Lawfinding that although the passage of eleven months "would suggest strongly the absence of a causal link," such a conclusion was not required because no retaliatory action could have been taken during that span of time
Summary of this case from Eldaghar v. City of Ny. Dept. of Citywide Adm. SVCfinding eleven-month gap between protected activity and termination sufficient to raise inference of retaliation
Summary of this case from Shufelt v. Town of Chathamfinding that while an eleven month passage time of "would suggest strongly the absence of a causal link, such an inference [was] not . . . compelled by the available evidence such that the Court could resolve the claim as a matter of law"
Summary of this case from Figueroa v. Weisenfreunddetermining that eleven months is close enough to establish an inference of a causal connection to plaintiff's termination
Summary of this case from Giglio v. Dermandetermining that eleven months is close enough to establish an inference of a causal connection to plaintiff's termination
Summary of this case from Albert v. City of Hartfordcharacterizing the question of whether a causal connection was established by an eleven-month span between protected activity and adverse action as "a question of fact, beyond the authority of the Court to resolve"
Summary of this case from Goldman v. Administration for Children's Servicescharacterizing the question of whether a causal connection was established by an eleven-month span between protected activity and adverse action as "a question of fact, beyond the authority of the Court to resolve"
Summary of this case from Koumantaros v. City University of New YorkIn Bernhardt, the Court held that it could not declare as a matter of law that the eleven-month period that had elapsed between plaintiff's protected activity and defendant's adverse action was too long to show a causal connection.
Summary of this case from Jones v. PotterFull title:Donald J. BERNHARDT, Plaintiff, v. INTERBANK OF NEW YORK, Dmitri…
Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York
Date published: Sep 25, 1998
d in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, as is appropriate in the context of summary judgment — appear…
White v. WhitmanOnly one case has been drawn to the Court's attention in which a causal connection was found despite the…