individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by [the ADA].” 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). To state an ADA retaliation claim, ASWAN must allege that (1) it engaged in protected conduct, (2) suffered an adverse action, and (3) a causal link exists between the protected conduct and the adverse action. Rhoads v. F.D.I.C., 257 F.3d 373, 392 (4th Cir .2001). VCU does not maintain that it arrived at its decision not to provide funding for transportation to the Conrad Center independent from this lawsuit. Rather, VCU conceded at oral argument that there was a “causal link” between its decision not to honor the transportation funding agreement and the filing of this lawsuit by ASWAN. See also Hunt-Golliday v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi, 104 F.3d 1004, 1011 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). VCU maintains, however, that this causal link
holding that the employers deviation from its established procedure when terminating the plaintiff was circumstantial evidence of retaliation holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction holding that placing employee on performance improvement plan was insufficient to support disparate treatment claim but could support retaliation claim because of lesser standard holding suspicious timing as circumstantial evi dence to support retaliation claim holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent