he bears the burden of establishing temporal proximity by a preponderance of the evidence. Taylor, 703 F.3d at 336. Nicholson has failed to produce evidence even approximating when he made his complaint in 2008, and therefore cannot establish a pri-ma facie case of retaliation with respect to his 2008 complaint. The only other protected activity evidenced in the record is Nicholson’s March 27, 2009 EEOC charge. After he filed this charge, Nicholson asserts that Clarksville engaged in adverse employment activities by declining to promote him in May and October of 2009, by ch on’s protected activity on March 27, 2009, and the denial of promotion in May 2009, may be sufficient to show a.causal connection. See Dye v. Office of the Racing Comm’n, 702 F.3d 286, 306 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); but see Warf v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans
holding that a lapse of two months as is the case here is sufficient to show a causal connection and the district court erred in holding otherwise holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury holding that the plaintiff cannot establish pretext because she is unable to show any causal connection holding that three to five months is a short enough time lapse between eeo activity and reprisal to establish a causal connection holding that five weeks constituted a short enough time lapse to establish a causal connection