or constructive discharge claims is no longer relevant. Second, anecdotal evidence of discrimination should only be admitted if “the prior incidences of alleged discrimination can somehow be tied to the employment actions disputed in the case at hand.” Simms v. State of Oklahoma, 165 F.3d 1321, 1330 (10th Cir.1999). Plaintiff can meet this requirement by showing that the same supervisors were involved in prior discriminatory employment actions. Id. Third, the district court should carefully scrutinize the time frame in which other alleged acts of discrimination occurred. Discriminatory incidents which occurred either several years before the contested action or anytime after are “not sufficiently connected to the employment action in question to demonstrate pretext.” Id. at 1331 (<HOLDING>); see also Cooley v. Carmike Cinemas, Inc., 25
holding that a remark by a decisionmaker made two years before termination was too remote in time to support a finding of pretext for intentional discrimination holding that discriminatory event which took place three years before was too remote holding that collateral crime that occurred twelve years prior to charged offense not too remote in time holding that eight years between prior convictions and the beginning of the charged conspiracy was not too remote holding that prior distribution and possession convictions that were eight and ten years before the charged conduct occurred were not too remote