adverse action. Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 319 (5th Cir.2004). “An employee has engaged in activity protected by Title VII if [he] has either (1) ‘opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice’ by Title VII or (2) ‘made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing’ under Title VII.” Long v. Eastfield Coll., 88 F.3d 300, 304 (5th Cir.1996) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)). McKinney concedes that he did not engage in any protected activity- Nevertheless, he alleges that Bolivar retaliated against-him because it believed that he was engaging in protected activity and that such a misperception suffices for a retaliation claim. See Fogleman v. Mercy Hosp. Inc., 283 F.3d 561, 571-72 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). As noted by the district court, the Fifth
holding that the plaintiff failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity holding that for purposes of a title vii retaliation claim an action is cognizable as an adverse employment action if it is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity holding that a plaintiffs retaliation claim is cognizable even in the absence of protected activity as long as his employer perceived him to be engaged in such activity holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim