The fact that he agreed to continue working for a limited period of time, instead of accepting immediate termination, does not discount the fact that an adverse action was taken against him. Blume, however, fails to present any evidence of causality other than the six-month period between his protected activity and the adverse action, and thus cannot ' establish a prima facie case of retaliation. This Circuit has made it clear that “temporal proximity alone will not support an inference of retaliatory discrimination when there is no other compelling evidence.” Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559, 566 (6th Cir.2000). This is particularly the case where the defendant provides reasonable evidence of alternative causation. Steiner v. Henderson, 121 Fed. Appx. 622, 628 (6th Cir.2005)(<HOLDING>). Blume’s inability to provide any
holding plaintiffs allegation that defendants committed torts in texas was sufficient to bring defendants under the longarm statute holding that plaintiffs conelusory allegation in his complaint that his suit was timely was insufficient to defeat motion to dismiss holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding proof of such moral incapacity sufficient to defeat the exclusion holding that the defendants convincingalternative explanation for the conduct at issue was sufficient to defeat an allegation of causality based on temporal proximity alone