-report to Griego and Smith on the student abuses. When asked about the evidence supporting May-erstein’s knowledge of Trujillo’s conversation with Griego and Smith, Trujillo’s counsel at the time did not highlight any evidence to the Court indicating that May-erstein knew of Trujillo’s report until April 2002. See Transcript of Hearing 91:1— 92:4. In his sworn affidavit, Trujillo alleges that, in an April 7, 2002, document, he referenced his reporting of, the student abuse to school officials as a basis for Mayerstein’s allegedly retaliatory conduct. Trujillo does not, however, offer evidence that Mayerstein knew of these reports before or during the time in which he allegedly subjected Trujillo to adverse employment actions. See Williams v. Rice, 983 F.2d 177, 181 (10th Cir.1993)(<HOLDING>); Sheker v. Grimes, No. 94-6312, 1995 WL
holding in the title vii context that the plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him know of the employees plaintiffs protected activity 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 holding that the plaintiff failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity holding that title vii plaintiff must show that retaliatory motive played a part in the adverse employment action holding that to establish a causal connection plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him knew of the employees protected activity