of an inference of causation.”); Ashok v. Barnhart, 289 F.Supp.2d 305, 315 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (“A period of only two months between a protected activity and an adverse action may permit a reasonable jury to find the acts to be temporally proximate and causally related.”); Nicastro v. Runyon, 60 F.Supp.2d 181, 185 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (“Claims of retaliation are routinely dismissed when as few as three months elapse between the protected EEO activity and the alleged act of retaliation.”). However, because the Second Circuit has found periods well beyond two months to be sufficient to suggest a causal relationship under certain circumstances, courts must carefully consider the time lapse in light of the entire record. See, e.g., Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 622 F.2d 43, 45-46 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Richardson v. N.Y. State Dep’t of
holding in the context of a title vii retaliation claim that a twoyear gap between the plaintiffs protected activity and the claimed retaliatory act proves fatal to plaintiffs assertion that there is a causal connection holding that the more than three month gap between the plaintiffs eeoc complaint and the allegedly adverse action was insufficient to show causation holding that a close temporal proximity between a public employees speech and a defendants actions suggested a causal relationship holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury holding more than eightmonth gap between eeoc complaint and retaliatory action suggested a causal relationship