protected activity for purposes of the first element of a prima facie case and the second element is not disputed. “To establish a causal connection, a plaintiff must show that ‘the decision-makers were aware of the protected conduct’ and ‘that the protected activity and the adverse employment action were not wholly unrelated.’ ” Gupta v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 590 (11th Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted). “[A]t a mini mum, [a plaintiff] must show that the adverse act followed the protected conduct.” Griffin v. GTE Fla., Inc., 182 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir.1999). In other words, the plaintiff must show a temporal link between a protected activity and an adverse employment action. See Sullivan v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 170 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Griffin, 182 F.3d at 1281-82 (finding no
holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient 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 intervening act of misconduct by the plaintiff can break the causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action holding that no causal link existed between protected activity in february 1994 and adverse employment actions in late 1994 and early 1995 holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection