Title VII does not “prevent an employer from making a disciplinary decision based on its evaluation of the veracity of an employee’s allegations that concern an activity that Title VII protects, such as complaints about sexual harassment”). In terms of the text of the statute, an employee who makes false allegations has not “opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice,” because only good faith, reasonable opposition is protected by the statute. Evans, 65 F.3d at 100; cf. Breeden, 532 U.S. at 270, 121 S.Ct. 1508. It follows, then, that a company that terminates an employee based on a good faith belief that he made false allegations has not discriminated against the employee “because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful of Minn., 221 F.3d 1042, 1045 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation omitted); Scott v. County
holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity holding in an americans with disability act retaliation action that ujnless an employer knows that an employee is engaging in protected activity it cannot retaliate against that employee because of the protected conduct holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct holding that the relevant question in imposing restitution under the mvra is whether the loss is caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction holding that the relevant inqui ry in retaliation case is whether the employer believed the employee was guilty of the conduct justifying discharge