demotion, the Agency focuses solely upon the timing of the letter. This ignores the email, which was received well before the events giving rise to Mathews’s placement on administrative leave. A causal connection is therefore not impossible to show. Furthermore, even if there had only been the one letter, it too was received by the Agency prior to its decision to demote Mathews. Although he had been placed on administrative leave prior to its receipt, there is no indication the decision to demote him had already been made. Mathews has satisfied his burden of showing a causal connection between his complaints and his subsequent demotion, and the requisite prima facie showing has thus been made. See St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the
recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous holding that a plaintiff in a discrimination case need not demonstrate that she was replaced by a person outside her protected class in order to carry her burden of establishing a prima facie case holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding that the burden of establishing prima facie case of discriminatory treatment may be satisfied by minimal showing holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence