Opinion ID: 219821
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 2006 and 2007 Evaluations

Text: Alexander contends that he received a poor annual evaluation in 2006 in retaliation for opposing the dean’s suggestion that students sign a pledge not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and for requesting information regarding faculty salaries. He asserts that he was given only a small 2007 salary adjustment in retaliation for filing an EEOC charge in December 2006. With respect to the 2006 evaluation, Alexander has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because he has not “proffer[ed] evidence sufficient to raise the inference that [his] protected activity was the likely reason for the adverse action.” Avery Dennison Corp., 104 F.3d at 861. Retaliation may be inferred from “temporal proximity” if “an adverse employment action occurs very close in time after an employer learns of a protected activity.” Mickey v. Zeidler Tool - 13 - No. 10-3358 Alexander v. Ohio State University College of Social Work, et al. & Die Co., 516 F.3d 516, 525 (6th Cir. 2008). “But where some time elapses between when the employer learns of a protected activity and the subsequent adverse employment action, the employee must couple temporal proximity with other evidence of retaliatory conduct to establish causality.” Ibid. Here, Alexander’s alleged protected activity occurred in July and August of 2005. His 2005–06 annual evaluation did not occur until May 2006. This court has held that an inference of retaliation may be established based on temporal proximity of two or three months. See Sanford v. Main St. Baptist Church Manor, Inc., 327 F. App’x 587, 600–01 (6th Cir. 2009) (two months); Singfield v. Akron Metro. Hous. Auth., 389 F.3d 555, 556 (2004) (three months). The nine-month gap here is too long to permit the inference, absent some other evidence. That additional evidence of retaliatory conduct could include more favorable treatment of similarly-situated professors who did not engage in protected activity. See Hill v. Air Tran Airways, 2011 WL 1042178, at  (6th Cir. March 23, 2011). As discussed above, however, Alexander has not demonstrated that he was treated differently from other faculty during the 2006 evaluation. With respect to the 2007 evaluation, Alexander has failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the reasons Defendants supplied for Alexander’s low raise were pretextual. See Abbott, 348 F.3d at 542. As previously discussed, he has not demonstrated that he was treated differently from other full professors, nor has he established that he deserved a better evaluation.