From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leonard v. Garantia Banking

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
May 15, 2000
213 F.3d 626 (2d Cir. 2000)

Summary

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 York

Opinion

Nos. 99-9266, 99-9418.

Filed May 15, 2000.

Appeal from S.D.N.Y.


Affirmed.


Summaries of

Leonard v. Garantia Banking

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
May 15, 2000
213 F.3d 626 (2d Cir. 2000)

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 York

discussing inconsistency within Second Circuit on fourth element of theMcDonnell Douglas test

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. New York City Housing Authority
Case details for

Leonard v. Garantia Banking

Case Details

Full title:Leonard v. Garantia Banking Ltd

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: May 15, 2000

Citations

213 F.3d 626 (2d Cir. 2000)

Citing Cases

Lumhoo v. Home Depot USA, Inc.

To the contrary, there is evidence in the record that Home Depot's stated reasons for terminating Anderson,…

In re Artisanal 2015, LLC

There is no dispute that § 16.2 of the Lease creates a conditional limitation, and that if properly…