context: The protected statement was made eleven months before the first lockout and the initiation of the Internal Affairs investigations. Although an inference from temporal proximity would have been stronger had the gap in time been smaller, an eleven-month gap in time is within the range that has been found to support an inference that an employment decision was retaliatory.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 265 F.3d 752, 752
citation_a.parenthetical: finding that, where there was a two-year gap between protected speech and an adverse action, the proximity in time did not in itself give rise to an inference of retaliation
citation_a.sentence: But see Keyser, 265 F.3d at 752 (finding that, where there was a two-year gap between protected speech and an adverse action, the proximity in time did not in itself give rise to an inference of retaliation).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 58 F.3d 1554, 1566
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that undue focus on timing distorts the sufficiency of evidence analysis, which is a "fact-bound, common-sense inquiry"
citation_b.sentence: See id. at 1212(finding retaliation where an employer terminated an employee three years after the employee began openly criticizing the department); see also Beckwith v. City of Daytona Beach Shores, 58 F.3d 1554, 1566 (11th Cir.1995) (noting that undue focus on timing distorts the sufficiency of evidence analysis, which is a “fact-bound, common-sense inquiry”).