do not constitute an adverse employment action. Id. at 1243. Further, harassment by coworkers may form the basis of a retaliation claim. • Id. at 1245. When adverse employment actions are taken within a reasonable amount of time after complaints of discrimination have been made, retaliatory intent may be inferred. Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 507 (9th Cir.2000). However, to invoke temporal proximity as a sole basis for asserting retaliation, the timing between the protected activity and the adverse employment action must be very close, such as in several days, not several months. Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273-74, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001); see also Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d
holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation holding that sufficient evidence of causation existed where adverse employment action occurred less than three months after protected activity holding that adverse employment activity that occurred 10 months and 17 months after protected activity was insufficient on its own to create a reasonable inference of causation holding that three and onehalf months between the filing of an eeoc charge and the adverse employment action was insufficient by itself to establish causation holding in a discrimination case that a close temporal proximity sufficient to survive summary judgment existed where the challenged employment action occurred one month after the protected activity