704(a) of Title is indirect proof of a causal connection between the firing and the activity because it is strongly suggestive of retaliation.”) (citations omitted). Here, the temporal proximity was close. Plaintiff filed her administrative complaint on September 14, 2010, and on September 29, 2010, Rodriguez informed her that she was being demoted. On that same day, plaintiff filed her EEOC complaint and only a few days later, on October 1, 2010, she alleges that a gradual process of demotion and withdrawal of her work functions began that lasted through December of 2010. The two week time 'period between plaintiffs first complaint and the beginning of the adverse employment action is sufficient to establish causation at the prima facie phase. See Calero Cerezo, 355 F.3d at 25-26 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, it is recommended that defendants’
holding that onemonth temporal proximity was sufficient to establish causation and noting that the prima facie burden in this context is not an onerous one holding that temporal proximity did not support a prima facie case where the employer was contemplating the transfer before it learned of the suit holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection