whether the Bank was motivated, in whole or in part, by Strate’s association with her disabled newborn child, then summary judgment was improperly granted for the Bank. The evidence establishes that Strate gave birth to her disabled child on April 20, 2001, enrolled the child in the Bank’s group healthcare plan on April 24, 2001, and was notified that her job had been eliminated on July 2, 2001, approximately two months later. It is undisputed that Ziegler knew about the child’s disability when he made the decision to eliminate her job. On rare occasions, a close temporal connection between a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation. See,e.g., Bassett v. City of Minneapolis, 211 F.3d 1097, 1105-06 (8th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>) (citing cases). It follows that close temporal
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 temporal link between protected activity and an adverse employment action may in some cases be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation holding that temporal proximity between the alleged retaliators knowledge of a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to establish causal connection or retaliatory motive in some cases holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action