is tied to the challenged retaliatory act, not the' underlying conduct that forms the basis of the Title VII complaint”). 1. Basic Contributor Rating LMC does not dispute that a basic contributor rating is an adverse employment action and that the action took place after Dr. Chawla’s August 2, 2011 and September 22, 2011 complaints. On September. 29, 2011, Mr. Hooker was notified that he was the subject of an investigation of Dr. Chawla’s complaints. Docket No. 37-2 at 5. However, Dr. Chawla does not contest that Mr. Nichols had a role in assigning the basic contributor rating and identified no specific facts upon which to conclude that Mr. Nichols was aware of Dr. Chawla’s prior complaints of discrimi nation. See Hinds v. Sprint/United Mgm’t Co., 523 F.3d 1187, 1203 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Dr. Chawla also does not attack the stated
holding that in order to show a causal connection plaintiff must present evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that those who decided to fire him had knowledge of his protected activity 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 to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury 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 in addition to temporal proximity plaintiff must show further evidence supporting a causal connection