which Williams denied and a claim to which Williams responded. The evidence showed no response made by TSAI to Williams’s denial of the alleged deficient performance. Fourth, Williams noted the timing of her termination in relation to her complaint of sexual harassment. While the “requisite causal connection may be proved circumstantially by showing the discharge followed the protected activity so closely in time as to justify an inference of retaliatory motive,” generally “more than a temporal connection between protected activity and an adverse employment action is required to show a genuine factual issue on retaliation exists.” Buettner v. Arch Coal Sales Co., Inc., 216 F.3d 707, 715-16 (8th Cir.2000); see also Barekman v. City of Republic, 232 S.W.3d 675, 682 (Mo.App. S.D.2007) (<HOLDING>). Not only did Williams present evidence that
recognizing that protected conduct closely followed by adverse action may justify an inference of retaliatory motive holding that an elevenmonth gap in time is within the range that has been found to support an inference of retaliatory motive holding the closeness in time between the plaintiffs complaint and the defendants demand for his resignation or firing supports an inference of retaliatory motive holding that closeness in time between the alleged retaliatory acts and the protected conduct raises a genuine issue as to a causal connection holding that the hiring and firing of an employee by the same actor within a period of a few years gives rise to an inference that age discrimination was not the motive behind the termination