Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): IS TEMPORALLY REMOTE FROM ALLEGED WHISTLEBLOWING Plaintiffs claim has a serious temporal problem: he alleges that he was not reappointed in late 2007 for events that took place in late 2003 and early 2004. Our courts have taken pains to stress that the length of time between an alleged whistleblowing and an adverse employment action is not dispositive of retaliation— when those two events are close in time (i.e., days, weeks, or a few months apart). If whistleblowing and retaliation that occur close in time are not sufficient to find causation under the WPA, whistleblowing and retaliation that occur far apart in time are certainly not sufficient to support causation — and, in fact, weigh against finding causation. See Fuhr v Hazel Park Sch Dist, 710 F3d 668, 675-676 (CA 6, 2013) (<HOLDING>). Here, there is an enormous temporal gap 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding that failure to demonstrate a causal connection is fatal to a  1983  cause of action (C) holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint (D) holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection (E) holding that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under title vii must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity that she was subjected to an adverse employment action by her employer and that there was a causal link between the two
Output (English): holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection