employer is the sort of action that could dissuade an employee from filing a [workers’ compensation] claim.” ¶ 33. We agree with the State that the videotaping of Hall in connection with his second workers’ compensation claim cannot, in and of itself, support Hall’s retaliation claim. To make out a prima facie case of retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim, a plaintiff must show, among other things, that “he suffered adverse employment decisions, an n in the parties’ Agreement were found to preclude all claims associated with Hall’s demotion, the limited video surveillance done in connection with Hall’s second workers’ compensation claim cannot, as a matter of law, support the retaliation claim. Cf. Gallipo v. City of Rutland, 2005 VT 83, ¶ 39, 178 Vt. 244, 882 A.2d 1177 (<HOLDING>). The videotaping was done one day in public in
holding that videotaping incident among others was insufficient to establish prima facie case that he suffered adverse employment action due to retaliation for his protected activity in violation of vermont fair employment practices act holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation without evidence that the decisionmaker knew about plaintiffs protected activity when he made the decision that resulted in the adverse action holding that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under title vii must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity that she was subjected to an adverse employment action by her employer and that there was a causal link between the two holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the 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