Zann Kwan, 737 F.3d at 845. However, as the district court concluded, the intervening time is too long to support an inference of causation. See Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273-74, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001). Quarless argues that the district court should have measured the interval based on Quarless’ more recent letters to the EEOC; but, as the district court found, there was no evidence that BBG was aware of those supplemental letters. Even if Quarless had established a prima facie case, BBG proffered a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for his termination: BBG was in financial distress and adopted cost-saving measures including an organization-wide reduction-in-force. See Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., L.P., 22 F.3d 1219, 1226 (2d Cir.1994), (<HOLDING>). Quarless argues that several statements by
recognizing as a legitimate reason for conducting layoffs a firms need to retain employees with the contemporary skills necessary to assimilate new technologies recognizing that an employers decision to eliminate a position is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating a position or employee holding that an employee may establish that the legitimate reason for an employment decision offered by an employer is pretextual by showing by a preponderance of the evidence either that the discrim inatory reason was the true reason motivating the employers conduct or that the profferred legitimate reason was false holding that a firms decision to implement a reductioninforce to meet its budgetary goals during a business downturn was a legitimate reason for terminating an employee holding that majority shareholders had legitimate business reasons for terminating a shareholder which included the reason that the shareholder was not working well with other employees