Area Transit Auth., 205 F.3d 428, 433 (D.C.Cir.2000). As discussed previously, Plaintiffs allegation regarding alleged retaliation in the removal of her partitions does not meet the prima facie requirements for retaliation because it did not constitute an adverse employment action—thereby failing the second prong of the prima facie test. See supra Section III(A)(l)(iii). However, Plaintiff cannot establish the third prong of the prima facie case—the “causal connection” requirement—with regard to her assertion that Mr. Columbia denied her a within-grade increase in 1995 based on retaliatory motives. To prove a causal connection, Plaintiff must make a “showing that the employer had knowledge of the employee’s protected activity, a Garrett v. Lujan, 799 F.Supp. 198, 202 (D.D.C.1992) (<HOLDING>); Townsend v. Washington Metro. Transit Auth.,
holding that a lengthy delay of approximately a year between plaintiffs reports and her termination does not support an inference she was fired because of the protected activity holding that a three month interval between protected activity and adverse act is too long standing alone to establish an inference of retaliation 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 threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation 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