App 1, 15; 770 NW2d 31 (2009) (“[a] temporal connection between protected activity and an adverse employment action does not, in and of itself, establish a casual connection”). 26 In its opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit noted that “[o]ur review of the law shows that multiyear gaps between the protected conduct and the first retaliatory act have been insufficient to establish the requisite causal connection.” Fuhr, 710 F3d at 676. This observation is correct; interpretations of our sister states’ whistleblower laws and jurisprudence have made similar observations on how a long time span between the alleged whistleblowing and supposed retaliation weigh against finding causation. See Blake v United American Ins Co, 37 F Supp 2d 997, 1002 (SD Ohio, 1998) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v Meyer Broadcasting Co, 2001ND 125,
holding that alleged whistleblowing action that took place five years before the plaintiffs termination was not close enough in time  to support a claim of retaliation holding that the plaintiffs failure to set forth a time frame in which his protected activity and the adverse action took place precluded an inference of a causal relationship between them and warranted dismissal of his first amendment retaliation claim holding that the close connection in time between the complaint and termination indicated that complaints could have been a motivating factor for employees termination holding that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate retaliation for activities that occurred two years prior to the termination holding that discriminatory event which took place three years before was too remote