letters of complaint to the OCR satisfied the Code’s requirements for filing a formal complaint, and plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies within the required time frame. I now turn to the merits of plaintiffs claims. II. Title VII Retaliation Title VII retaliation actions a intiff must establish that (1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) defendant took an adverse personnel action; and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse personnel action. See Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452-53 (D.C.Cir.1999) (citing Mitchell v. Baldrige, 759 F.2d 80, 86 (D.C.Cir.1985) (quoting McKenna v. Weinberger, 729 F.2d 783, 788 (D.C.Cir.1984))); see also Cones v. Shalala, 199 F.3d 512, 520 (D.C.Cir.2000); Childers v. Slater, 44 F.Supp. ) (<HOLDING>); Devera v. Adams, 874 F.Supp. 17, 21
holding that almost a year between plaintiffs eeo activity and the adverse employment decision is too great a length of time to support an inference of reprisal holding that five weeks constituted a short enough time lapse to establish a 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 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 five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection