Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): In his letter dated August 16, 1997 to the EEOC challenging the dismissal of his five complaints, plaintiff wrote, “my complaints/appeals to the EEOC,” (referring to the letters of complaint submitted in late 1996 and early 1997), “are ALREADY FORMAL COMPLAINTS.” (Compl. at Ex. 7) (emphasis in original). Much the same situation arose in Love v. Pullman Co., when the petitioner sent the EEOC a letter of complaint, alleging that his employer had violated Title VII. 404 U.S. at 522, 92 S.Ct. 616. The district court dismissed petitioner’s claim, because he had not formally filed a second grievance when the agency notified him of his right to do so. Id. at 523-24, 92 S.Ct. 616. The court of appeals affirmed. Love v. Pullman Co., 430 F.2d 49 (10th Cir.1969). The Supreme Court 992) (<HOLDING>), but see Hayes v. Shalala, 902 F.Supp. 259, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that three to five months is a short enough time lapse between eeo activity and reprisal to establish a causal connection (B) holding that a three month interval between protected activity and adverse act is too long standing alone to establish an inference of retaliation (C) holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation (D) holding that a lengthy delay of approximately a year between plaintiffs reports and her termination does not support an inference she was fired because of the protected activity (E) holding that almost a year between plaintiffs eeo activity and the adverse employment decision is too great a length of time to support an inference of reprisal
Output (English): holding that a three month interval between protected activity and adverse act is too long standing alone to establish an inference of retaliation