(“No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.” (emphasis added)); Petersen, 301 F.3d at 1188 (“An employer’s action against an employee cannot be because of that employee’s protected opposition unless the employer knows the employee has engaged in protected opposition.”). In other words, Mr. Jones cannot establish a causal link between his allegedly protected activity and UPS’s refusal to return him to work unless he can show that UPS knew he was engaging in protected activity. See Williams v. Rice, 983 F.2d 177, 181 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). To establish causation, Mr. Jones must
holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection 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 to establish a causal connection plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him knew of the employees protected activity 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 failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity