Very close timing may alone support an inference of causation, while longer gaps require additional evidence. Courts have found periods of days or weeks sufficient and periods of months insufficient standing alone.
Intervening events weaken the inference.
Alternative Names:
Timing Evidence|Close Temporal Proximity
Why it Matters?
Intervening performance problems break the inference directly, since an employee terminated two weeks after complaining but one week after a documented incident faces a causation problem the timing alone would not create. Documenting performance issues as they occur rather than compiling them at termination is what makes that argument available. Extended gaps also favor the employer, though a pattern of escalating treatment can bridge them.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What breaks the timing inference?
Does a long gap defeat causation?
