"	Causation for retaliation claims may be established by showing that the adverse action occurred shortly after the protected activity and that the person who undertook the adverse action was aware of the protected activity before taking the action. 

-------------------


The third element of the prima facie retaliation claim requires the plaintiff to prove that the adverse employment action was causally connected to the statutorily protected activity.  See, Dowe v. Total Action, 145 F.3d 653, 657-58 (4th Cir. 1998).  
-----------------------

The EEOC Compliance Manual notes that typically the causal link is demonstrated by evidence that  (1)  "the adverse action occurred shortly after the protected activity,? and (2) "the person who undertook the adverse action was aware of the plaintiff's protected activity before taking the action."  See 

§8-II(E)(2), p.8-18. 
---------------------
The third element of the prima facie retaliation claim requires the plaintiff to prove that the adverse employment action was causally connected to the statutorily protected activity.  See, Dowe v. Total Action, 145 F.3d 653, 657-58 (4th Cir. 1998).  


The circuit courts differ in their interpretation of what a plaintiff must demonstrate to satisfy the causal connection element of the prima facie case.  The Eleventh Circuit and Sixth Circuits, for example, have held that a plaintiff must simply show that the decision-makers were aware of the protected conduct, and that the activity and the adverse action were ?not wholly unrelated" Bass v. Board of County Commiss.,Orange County, Fl., 256 F.3d 1095, 1119 (11th Cir. 2001);  Gupta v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 590 (11th Cir. 2000); EEOC v. Avery Dennison Corp, 104 F.3d 858 (6th Cir. 1997).  The Seventh Circuit has applied the ?not wholly unrelated? test in some cases, and in others has required the plaintiff to show that the employer would not have taken the adverse action "but for" the plaintiff's protected activity.  Compare, Horwitz v. Board of Education, 260 F.3d 602, 613 (7th Cir  2001)(?not wholly unrelated?) and Adusumilli v. City of Chicago, 164 F.3d 353, 363 (7th Cir. 1998); Rizzo v. Sheahan, 266 F.3d 705, 715 (7th Cir. 2001)(?but for?).  The Fifth Circuit has held that causation at the prima facie stage is ?much less stringent than a ?but for? standard;? Montemayor v. San Antonio, 276 F.3d 687  (5th Cir 2001); ?not as stringent as the ?but for? standard;? Raggs v. Mississippi Power & Light Company, 87 FEP 1139 (5th Cir. 2002).5 


The link between the adverse action and the protected activity may be proven either through direct or circumstantial evidence.  A  plaintiff may rely upon a ?broad array of evidence? to establish causation.  While causation depends largely on the particular facts and circumstances of a case, circumstantial evidence of causation may include:  temporal proximity between the two events, an intervening pattern of retaliatory conduct, inconsistent reasons by the employer for the adverse action, and differential treatment of other employees.  See, e.g., Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271, 279-81 (3d Cir. 2000).  Farrell notes that the test for ?causal connection? in the prima facie case and the ultimate determination of whether the employer?s non-discriminatory reasons are pretextual are sometimes ?conflated.?  The court thus holds that it ?will not limit the kinds of evidence that can be probative of a causal link any more than the courts have limited the type of evidence that can be used to demonstrate pretext.?  Id.at 286. 
---------------------