elements. He presented footage of his speech at the October 12, 2009, City Commission meeting, and produced documents evincing his termination. The evidence also demonstrated that Mr. Willingham suffered damages, including lost wages, due to his allegedly unlawful termination. The dispute principally concerns whether Mr. Willingham presented sufficient evidence of causation. This Court finds that he did. For example, Mayor Arnold terminated Mr. Willingham roughly two weeks after he spoke at the City Commission meeting. It is well-established that such close temporal proximity between the protected speech and adverse employment action constitutes circumstantial evidence of causation. Cf. Constable v. Agilysis, Inc., No. 8:10-CV-01778-EAK, 2011 WL 2446605, at *6 (M.D.Fla. June 15, 2011) (<HOLDING>). Other evidence suggested that Mayor Arnold,
holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation 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 three to four month period between the protected activity is not enough to show very close temporal proximity holding that sufficient evidence of causation existed where adverse employment action occurred less than three months after the protected activity holding in a discrimination case that a close temporal proximity sufficient to survive summary judgment existed where the challenged employment action occurred one month after the protected activity