[brief] A prima facie showing of causation is established where the plaintiff produces evidence that “[i]t is ‘more likely than not’ that his statutorily protected conduct . . . was a ‘determinative or substantial motivating factor in [the defendant’s] decision to terminate his employment. ’”  *Schlichtig v. Inacom Corp.*, 271 F.Supp. 2d 597, 609 (D.N.J. 2003).  A plaintiff may do so by presenting “either direct evidence of retaliation or circumstantial evidence that justifies an inference of retaliation. ”  *Zaffuto v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.*, 130 Fed. Appx. 566, 569 (3d Cir. 2005).  Temporal proximity is “one circumstance that may support an inference of a causal connection. ”  *Maimone*, 188 N.J. at 237; see *Romano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.*, 284 N.J. Super. 543, 550 (App. Div. 1995).  Other circumstantial evidence supporting a finding of causation is evidence that “demonstrates such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence, and hence infer that the employer did not act for the asserted non-retaliatory reasons. ”  *Kolb v. Burns*, 320 N.J. Super. 467, 478 (App. Div. 1999)(emphasis added).  Such evidence need not be viewed in a vacuum.  In fact, the “proffered evidence, looked at as a whole, may suffice to raise the inference. ”  Kachmar, 109 F.3d at 177 (emphasis added).  The record establishes a causal connection between Plaintiff’s protected activity and Defendants’ adverse employment action within the Complaint.  Specifically, after Plaintiff continually voiced her concerns and then filed her DOL complaint, Defendants escalated the adverse employment action by placing Plaintiff on a pretextual development plan.  (PA000009-PA000010).  This plan, which was based on two disciplinary write ups on Plaintiff’s record, was inconsistent and contradictory as both write ups were proven false and should have been removed from Plaintiff’s record.  (PA000010-PA000011).  Nonetheless, Defendants then claimed Plaintiff violated the smoking policy, yet another pretextual accusation and further inconsistency, upon review of a nine (9) month old photo of her smoking outside the establishment in June 2021.  Id.  Once again, Plaintiff debunked this accusation when observing the time frame of said photo, which was before Defendants’ smoking policy came into effect.  (PA000011).  Finally, after observing Defendants’ pretextual reasoning for Plaintiff’s development plan was faulty at best, Defendants insisted Plaintiff had an “aggressive demeanor” and terminated her without further explanation.  Id.  This caused Plaintiff significant economic harm and emotional distress as a result.  Id.  Clearly, Plaintiff has demonstrated a causal connection that “[i]t is ‘more likely than not’ that [her] statutorily protected conduct . . . was a ‘determinative or substantial motivating factor in [Defendants’] decision to terminate [her] employment’” based on this timeline of events.  Schlichtig, 271 F.Supp. 2d at 609.  The direct evidence of retaliation outlined above, and the circumstantial evidence of retaliation based on the lackluster explanations for Plaintiff’s “performance issues” only points to an inference of retaliation and wrongful termination on the part of Defendants.  Zaffuto, 130 Fed. Appx. at 569.  Thus, such prima facie claims, when reviewing the Complaint as a whole, suffices to raise the inference of retaliation, and requires the reversal of the Motion Judge’s dismissal order.  Kachmar, 109 F.3d at 177.  C.