"Temporal Proximity" in Federal EEO and Reprisal Cases

If you are a federal or other public sector employee considering an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint, a whistleblower claim, or a reprisal action, you've likely encountered the term "temporal proximity." This legal concept is a crucial tool for establishing a link between your protected activity and a subsequent adverse agency action.

But what exactly does it mean, and how much time is too much time? Here is a breakdown of temporal proximity and its role in federal sector claims.

What is Temporal Proximity?

In simple terms, temporal proximity is a legal principle that links two events—your protected activity and the adverse action taken by your agency—because they occurred relatively close to each other in time.

In the federal sector, this concept predominantly arises in:

• EEO Reprisal Complaints

• (Post) Reasonable Accommodation Claims (alleging reprisal for the request)

• Whistleblower Claims

The "Inference of Causation"

The primary function of temporal proximity is to allow for an "inference of causation." This means a court or the EEOC may infer that the agency's action would not have occurred but for your protected activity that immediately preceded it.

Key Legal Requirement: A fundamental element of a prima facie case of reprisal is showing that the alleged retaliation "followed the complainant's engagement in protected activity within such period of time that one can infer retaliatory motive." (Speece v. U.S. Postal Service, 84 FEOR 20325).

How Close is "Close Enough"? Examples from Federal Case Law

There is no "bright-line" rule, but federal case law, particularly from the EEOC, provides clear guidance on what constitutes sufficient temporal proximity to establish a link (or nexus).

Timeframe	Finding	Case Example & Context
A Few Months	Sufficient Proximity	A supervisor learned of EEO activity on February 7, 2019, and adverse actions began in May 2019. (Terrance A. v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC No. 2020002047)
Less than One Week	Very Strong Proximity	A counseling memorandum was issued on July 1, 2019, less than one week after the EEO activity was discussed on June 26, 2019. (Terrance A. v. Department of the Treasury)
Six Months	Insufficient Proximity	The Commission drew no inference of retaliation where at least six months had passed between the protected activity and the adverse treatment. (Knight v. Postmaster General, 01A54821 (2006))
One Year or More	Too Remote	The passage of a year or more between the protected activity and the adverse action does notgive rise to an inference of retaliation. (O'Neill v. Postmaster General, 01A45961 (2005))

In addition to timing, courts look at other facts. For instance, in Cardozo v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC No. 07A30014 (2004), a link was established not just by timing, but by a supervisor's comment that the complainant would never be promoted because of the "stink" he "made to come on board" due to his past EEO activity.

The Important Limitation: Proximity Doesn't Equal Proof

It is vital to understand that establishing temporal proximity alone is not a guarantee that you will win your case.

• Proximity establishes a causal connection: It merely meets a threshold requirement, allowing your complaint to advance.

• You must still prove unlawful retaliation: You ultimately need to prove that the agency's action was taken onlyin reprisal for the protected activity—meaning the agency would not have otherwise taken the action.

Even when you can show a very close time frame, the agency can still prevail by presenting a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for their action. For example, if a poor performance record predates the protected activity, a subsequent adverse action may not be viewed as retaliatory.

If you have engaged in a protected activity (like filing an EEO complaint or requesting a reasonable accommodation) and have subsequently experienced an adverse action:

1. Document everything: Create a detailed timeline of your protected activity, including the exact date the agency official who took the adverse action became aware of it.

2. Note the dates: Record the specific dates of any adverse actions (e.g., non-selection, reprimand, suspension).

3. Compare the gap: Use the guidance from EEOC case law to determine if your case falls within the necessary temporal window to establish an inference of causation.

If you are facing an adverse action following a protected activity, you may want to consider obtaining a free initial consultation.