stating that “temporal proximity alone is not sufficient to establish that [a plaintiff’s] engagement in protected activity was a ‘but for’ cause” of the adverse action (citing Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 670 F.3d 644, 660 (5th Cir. 2012))
How later courts described this case
- stating that “temporal proximity alone is not sufficient to establish that [a plaintiff’s] engagement in protected activity was a ‘but for’ cause” of the adverse action (citing Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 670 F.3d 644, 660 (5th Cir. 2012))
- “[T]emporal proximity alone is not sufficient to establish that [ ] engagement in protected activity was a ‘but for’ cause.”’
- “Although Staley’s non-conversion occurred shortly after she filed the formal EEOC complaint, this temporal proximity alone is not sufficient to establish that her engagement in protected activity was a “but[-]for’ cause of her non- conversion.”
- “Although [the plaintiff's adverse employment action] occurred shortly after she filed the formal EEOC complaint, this temporal proximity alone is not sufficient to establish that her engagement in protected activity was a ‘but for’ cause of [the employment action].”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM:.
Consolidation Coal Company petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2012). Our review of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Blankenship, No. 11-0723 BLA (B.R.B. July 26, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.