by the Eleventh Circuit in Doe. As applied in this case, the Court cannot say that a reasonable person would have found the denial of the request to transfer to be materially adverse. Unlike White, the responsibilities of the two positions at issue in this case are almost identical. See 126 S.Ct. at 2417. When describing the responsibilities of the requested position, Plaintiff stated, “They basically do what I do.” (First Reis Depo. at 45). The only differences of record between the two positions are that (1) the requested position is indoors where there is heat and air conditioning, (2) the requested position begins work earlier in the day than Plaintiffs position; and (3) the requested positi purpose of Count III was Plaintiffs termination. ii. Causal Link Def 5, 951 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Breech v. Ala. Power Co., 962 F.Supp. 1447,
holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection 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 more than a year between the protected activity and the discharge is not close enough to support the causal connection requirement holding that a 7month time period between the protected activity and the adverse employment action is too indirect to satisfy the causal connection requirement holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection