Opinion ID: 820545
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Forbes’s Termination

Text: Next, Forbes argues that the district court erred when it concluded that no causal relationship existed between his February 2 EEOC Charge and his July 19 termination. Again, we agree with the district court’s analysis. 7 Case: 12-12502 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 8 of 9 Although close temporal proximity between the statutorily protected expression and the adverse employment action can show a causal relationship, “[a] three to four month disparity . . . is not enough.” Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). The gap between Forbes’s EEOC Charge and his termination was over five months, and “in the absence of other evidence tending to show causation,” Forbes’s retaliation claim must fail. Id. As we noted earlier when discussing Forbes’s written reprimand, there is no evidence that Forbes’s termination resulted from anything other than unsatisfactory work.