254, 260 (5th Cir.2001). “An essential element of a [29 U.S.C. § 1140] claim is proof of [the] defendant’s specific discriminatory intent.” Hines v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 43 F.3d 207, 209 (5th Cir.1995). Roberts cannot prevail on this claim because she has failed to establish that defendants acted with specific discriminatory intent. When her benefits were cancelled in June and July 2005, she was no longer employed at Unitrin, and her benefits were promptly reinstated. Moreover, Roberts has not shown any causal connection between defendants’ alleged receipt of her EEOC charge and the cancellation of her benefits because she has failed to show that the person who cancelled her benefits had knowledge of her EEOC charge. See Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., 238 F.3d 674, 684 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citation
holding that a plaintiff can establish a causal link by showing that the employers decision  was based in part on knowledge of the employees protected activity 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 an employers knowledge of protected activity and the discharge of employees less than two months after negotiation of eeoc settlement agreements was sufficiently probative of a causal link to withstand summary judgment 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 that an intervening act of misconduct by the plaintiff can break the causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action