rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act.” Id. (quotation omitted). AlliedSignal does not dispute that Foster suffered a work-related injury for which she might file a claim, that it had knowledge of the injury, or that it terminated Foster’s employment. The company contends, however, that it is entitled to summary judgment because “there is simply no evidence to support the fourth element of plaintiffs prima facie case.” (Appellee’s Br. at 17.) AlliedSignal is mistaken. To establish a causal connection, a plaintiff must establish that the individual or individuals who actually undertook the alleged retaliatory acts were aware or should have been aware of plaintiffs participation in the protected activity. See Gunnell v. Utah Valley State Coll, 152 F.3d 1253, 1265 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Fenton v. HiSAN, Inc., 174 F.3d 827,
recognizing the difference between statutory cause of action for retaliation and common law tort of retaliatory discharge recognizing that a texas common law claim for retaliatory discharge is a claim sounding in tort holding that a retaliatory discharge claim must be predicated on intentional and knowing retaliation holding that retaliatory discharge is a clearly established first amendment violation recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge