When timing is the only basis for a claim of retaliation, and when gradual adverse job actions began well before the plaintiff had ever engaged in any protected activity, an inference of retaliation does not arise. Since plaintiff’s supervisor began documenting plaintiff’s performance issues months before she engaged in protected activity, plaintiff cannot establish that any adverse action she suffered was causally related to her protected activity.
We affirm the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment for the defendant-employer.
Bullock v. Kendall (Lawyers Weekly No. 003-031-22, 5 pp.) (Per Curiam) No. 21-2111. Appealed from USDC at Columbia, S.C. (Mary Lewis, J.) Shannon Polvi for appellant; Corey Ellis and Kathleen Stoughton for appellee. 4th Cir. Unpub.