the FBI with a recommendation that Plaintiffs reinstatement be denied. (Pl.’s Resp. at 13.) Where there is a prolonged period between the protected activity and the ad verse employment action, there is no temporal nexus to establish that the protected activity resulted in the adverse employment action. See Timm v. Wright State Univ., 375 F.3d 418, 423 (6th Cir.2004) (“Eight months is a long period of time for an employer to wait to retaliate against an employee with a termination notice [...].”); Hafford v. Seidner, 183 F.3d 506, 515 (6th Cir.1999) (the plaintiff could not demonstrate a temporal nexus between filing an OCRC and EEOC complaints and disciplinary actions which occurred two to five months afterwards); Cooper v. City of North Olmsted, 795 F.2d 1265, 1272 (6th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). In the case at hand, there was a ten year
holding that if the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of age discrimination the employer must show that the discharge was based on reasonable factors other than age  and if the employer meets that burden the plaintiff must show that age was a determining factor in the discharge holding that plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of discrimination where plaintiff failed to meet minimum qualifications for job holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 holding that the employers discharge of the plaintiff four months after the plaintiff filed a discrimination claim is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge