‘opportunity’ to work in channel sales, but never intended to actually perform the role.” Pl.’s Resp. 10. This is further evidence that Savignano continued to have doubts about Hobbs’s attitude and commitment before she was moved to channel sales. Hobbs’s recorded conversation similarly demonstrates that Savignano wanted to discharge Hobbs as early as mid-2008, long before Hobbs inquired about FMLA leave, due to what he perceived as a poor attitude and miscommunications. During this same conversation, Webb indicated that Ketera was experiencing financial difficulty because of salaries exceeding sales. Together, this evidence undermines Hobbs’s reliance on temporal proximity. See Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 272-74, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Without temporal proximity, Hobbs’s argument
holding that the plaintiff made a prima facie case even though there was no evidence of causal connection other than the fact that the plaintiff was fired after bringing a lawsuit holding that where evidence showed plaintiffs supervisor considered transferring plaintiff the day before she was served with plaintiffs lawsuit there was no causal connection showing that the transfer was retaliatory holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury holding in the context of a title vii retaliation claim that a twoyear gap between the plaintiffs protected activity and the claimed retaliatory act proves fatal to plaintiffs assertion that there is a causal connection holding plaintiffs supervisor subject to suit