context: An employee may establish a causal connection "by showing that the employer had knowledge of the employee's protected activity, and that the [retaliatory] action took place shortly after that activity." Courts in this District have held that a gap of even two months is too remote to infer any casual, connection.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 294 F.Supp.2d 33, 41
citation_a.parenthetical: two-month gap between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to demonstrate temporal proximity to establish a casual connection
citation_a.sentence: See Baker v. Potter, 294 F.Supp.2d 33, 41 (D.D.C.2003) (two-month gap between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to demonstrate temporal proximity to establish a casual connection); see also, Mayers v. Laborers’ Health & Safety Fund of North America, 478 F.3d 364, 369 (D.C.Cir.2007) (Eight or nine month gap “far too long” to establish causal link); Nagpal v. Holder, 750 F.Supp.2d 20 (D.D.C.2010) (“four month gap between protected activity and the adverse employment action lacks the temporal proximity necessary to establish a casual connection” in this Circuit).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: "four month gap between protected activity and the adverse employment action lacks the temporal proximity necessary to establish a casual connection" in this Circuit
citation_b.sentence: See Baker v. Potter, 294 F.Supp.2d 33, 41 (D.D.C.2003) (two-month gap between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to demonstrate temporal proximity to establish a casual connection); see also, Mayers v. Laborers’ Health & Safety Fund of North America, 478 F.3d 364, 369 (D.C.Cir.2007) (Eight or nine month gap “far too long” to establish causal link); Nagpal v. Holder, 750 F.Supp.2d 20 (D.D.C.2010) (“four month gap between protected activity and the adverse employment action lacks the temporal proximity necessary to establish a casual connection” in this Circuit).