that the adverse personnel action took place shortly after that activity.” Mitchell, 759 F.2d at 86; see also Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 622 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir.1980) (“[CJourts have recognized that proof of causal connection can be established indirectly by showing that discriminatory activity is followed by discriminator rts within this Circuit have also found that time lapses of greater length negate any inference that a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the complained-of action. See, e.g., MECO Corp. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 986 F.2d 1434, 1437 (D.C.Cir.1993) (citing various cases noting that gaps of four-to-eight months were insufficient to support an inference of causation in a similar setting); Devera v. Adams, 874 F.Supp. 17, 21 (D.D.C.1995) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 1997 WL 404898 (D.C.Cir. June 5,
holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights holding that a three month interval between protected activity and adverse act is too long standing alone to establish an inference of retaliation holding that absent other evidence a thirteenmonth interval between an eeo charge and alleged retaliatory termination was too long to establish a causal link holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient holding that an eight month interval between the two events is not strongly suggestive of a causal link