The standard for assessing complaints of retaliation requires a "but for" retaliatory motive. In general, the university looks at the whether or not the adverse action would have been taken but for retaliatory purposes. If there are multiple causes for the adverse action being taken, it must be shown that retaliation was the primary motive.
Close proximity in time between when the person engaged in protected activity and when the adverse action occurred is more likely than not going to support the assertion that the adverse action was motivated by retaliation.
Engaging in protected activity, however, does not shield an employee from all discipline or discharge. Employers are permitted to discipline or terminate employees if motivated by non-retaliatory and non-discriminatory reasons that would otherwise result in such consequences. Supervisors are strongly advised to seek advice from Human Resources, University Counsel or the Office of Compliance & Equity prior to taking non-discriminatory personnel actions against an employee who has engaged in protected activity.