Mary Csanyi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants following a bench retaliation claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) because Csanyi failed to establish a causal link between the adverse action and the protected activity. See Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793, 796-97 (9th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Csanyi’s contention, the district
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 that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation without evidence that the decisionmaker knew about plaintiffs protected activity when he made the decision that resulted in the adverse action holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct holding that the plaintiff had to provide direct or circumstantial evidence that the supervisors who took the adverse action against the plaintiff knew about the protected activity prior to taking that action