Def.’s Mot. at 13. Accordingly, the court turns directly to the dispositive question: whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the defendant’s asserted non-retaliatory reason was not the actual reason and that the employer intentionally retaliated against the employee. See Brady, 520 F.3d at 494; Laurent, 544 F.Supp.2d at 22 n. 3 (concluding that the defendant’s articulation of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the plaintiffs termination also rendered an examination of the prima facie case of retaliation unnecessary). At a minimum, the plaintiff must offer some evidence of a causal relationship between his involvement in protected activity and his nonselection. See Cooke v. Rosenker, 601 F.Supp.2d 64, 79 (D.D.C.2009) (<HOLDING>); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,
holding that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under title vii must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity that she was subjected to an adverse employment action by her employer and that there was a causal link between the two holding that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding her retaliation claim because she failed to offer any evidence of a causal relationship between her involvement in protected activity and the adverse employment action holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action holding that plaintiff cannot establish pretext because she is unable to show any causal connection her complaints and the adverse action