has not done so. First, Caldwell admitted in her deposition that she did not perform the minimum number of E-Walks required by the PDP during some weeks, and she presented no evidence to rebut Mobley’s assertion in the non-renewal recommendation that she was late to work over twenty times during the 2011-2012 school year. She also admitted this fact in her response to the School District’s statement of material facts. Thus, undisputed evidence establishes that Caldwell did not fully complete the second PDP and did not report to work on time consistently. Second, there is no close temporal proximity between Caldwell’s FMLA leave, which ended in October 2011, and Mobley’s submission of her recommendation in March 2012. See Wascura v. City of S. Miami, 257 F.3d 1238, 1248 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Although Caldwell was given a PDP and placed
holding that three and onehalf months between the filing of an eeoc charge and the adverse employment action was insufficient by itself to establish causation holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection holding that by itself three and onehalf months was insufficient to prove causation holding that a three to four month period between the protected activity is not enough to show very close temporal proximity holding that a three and onehalf month temporal proximity is insufficient to create a jury issue on causation