SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Fitzgerald Georges brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 1 With regard to Georges’s Title VII race discrimination and First Amendment retaliation claims, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum decision.

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Georges’s retaliation claims under Title VII and § 1981 on an alternate ground. See Eichelberg v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 57 F.3d 1179, 1186 n. 6 (2d Cir. 1995). “In order to make out a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence [1] participation in a protected activity known to the defendant; [2] an employment action disadvantaging the plaintiff; and [3] a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87, 94 (2d Cir. *81 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff must establish but-for causation to prevail on a retaliation claim. Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2533, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013).

Here, no reasonable jury could find that Georges had established a causal nexus between the EEOC charge and his termination. We have held that “[wjhere timing is the only basis for a claim of retaliation, and gradual adverse job actions began well before the plaintiff had ever engaged in any protected activity, an inference of retaliation does not arise.” Slattery, 248 F.3d at 95. Prior to Georges filing his EEOC charge, Appellees had written Georges multiple warning letters related to instances where he had mishandled his job responsibilities, and his supervisor had notified Georges of her decision to recommend termination of his employment. Georges cannot establish a causal nexus between his EEOC charge and the Board of Education’s termination vote, and therefore he has not made out a prima facie case of retaliation.

We have considered all of Georges’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.