is sufficient to permit an inference of gender discrimination on Roccanova’s part in connection with the administration of the RIF. First, Roccanova herself is a woman, and although not conclusive, see Feingold v. N.Y., 366 F.3d 138, 155 (2d Cir.2004), that fact is relevant to the inquiry. See Zito, 869 F.Supp.2d at 395 (RIF decision-maker’s gender and age precluded an inference of age or gender discrimination). Second, the connection between these alleged comments and Roceanova’s participation in the January RIF is attenuated. To permit some inference of discriminatory intent, these two comments would need to be related to the adverse employment action in question. See, e.g., Ferrand v. Credit Lyonnais, No. 02 Civ. 5191(VM), 2003 WL 22251313, at *9-11 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2003) (<HOLDING>), aff'd 110 Fed.Appx. 160 (2d Cir.2004).
holding that an intervening act of misconduct by the plaintiff can break the causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient holding that isolated remarks are insufficient to prove discriminatory intent holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection