see also Schug v. The Pyne-Davidson Co., No. 3:99-CV-1493 CFD, 2001 WL 34312877, at *5 (D.Conn. Dec.10, 2001) (“[cjertainly, comments concerning retirement can be made without suggesting age discrimination. However, like any remarks, they must be viewed in context, along with the specific language used and the number of times the comments were made.”) The Second Circuit has held that when an employer had a legitimate reason to question whether an employee was taking early retirement, the comments did not reflect a discriminatory animus, Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55, 63 (2d Cir.1997), however, the proper focus is on whether there is a nexus between the comments and the decision to terminate the employee. See, e.g., Danzer v. Norden Systems, Inc., 151 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir.l998)(<HOLDING>); Feldman v. Looms, No. 98-9680, 1999 WL
recognizing that the seventh circuit consistently has held that isolated comments that are no more than stray remarks in the work place are insufficient to establish that a particular decision was motivated by discriminatory animus holding that comments which were considered by personnel board in normal course of considering employment action were relevant to establish discriminatory intent and were not just stray remarks holding that absent a casual link between supervisors isolated racial remarks and employers decision to promote stray remarks cannot support a verdict for race discrimination holding that stray comments without more cannot establish a case of employment discrimination but if other indicia of discrimination are properly presented the remarks can no longer be deemed stray and the jury has a right to conclude that they bear a more ominous significance recognizing that stray remarks are insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination and concluding that a comment by the decisionmaker that he selected a candidate for a promotion because the candidate was a bright intelligent knowledgeable young man was a stray remark that did not raise an inference of age discrimination