case, because there is no evidence that Smoot knew she had filed a complaint against Ray. Bruce argues that her email to the compliance hotline constituted protected activity and that Smoot directed her to work at the clinic in retaliation for that email. Smoot, in his affidavit, stated that he had no knowledge of Bruce’s email. Bruce acknowledges that she did not tell Smoot about the incident. However, Bruce argues that because some employees at Meharry were aware of Ray’s conduct, Smoot did not need to have actual knowledge to establish the existence of a prima facie case of retaliation. However, Bruce must show, either through direct or circumstantial evidence that Smoot, her supervisor, knew of her protected activity. See Mulhall v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 543, 552-54 (6th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). Bruce has not produced either direct or
holding that the plaintiff had to provide direct or circumstantial evidence that the supervisors who took the adverse action against the plaintiff knew about the protected activity prior to taking that action holding in the title vii context that the plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him know of the employees plaintiffs protected activity holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation without evidence that the decisionmaker knew about plaintiffs protected activity when he made the decision that resulted in the adverse action holding that to establish a causal connection plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him knew of the employees protected activity holding the third element of the test requires a plaintiff to show that his or her protected activity was a butfor cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer