Elkhorn Coal Corp. v. Butler

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a period of one month or less “typically suffices” to raise a plausible inference of retaliation
• “Causation may be inferred—especially at the pleading stage—when the retaliatory act follows close on the heels of the protected activity.”
• “[B]ecause ‘the close temporal proximity of the protected behavior and the alleged retaliation’ suggest[s] that a causal relationship exists between the two, ‘[n]o more is necessary to survive Rule 12(b)(6
• “[T]he D.C. Circuit ‘has held that a close temporal relationship may alone establish the required causal connection,’ . . . if ‘the two events are “very close” in time . . . .’” (citations omitted)
• “But for purposes of this motion to dismiss, because the close temporal proximity of the protected behavior and the alleged retaliation suggest that a causal relationship exists between the two, “[n]o more is necessary to survive Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).