OPINION

Shonali Tahiliani appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Bayer Corporation on her complaint alleging discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. We will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Tahiliani was employed by Bayer as a Research and Development Chemist from June 1997 until she resigned in June 2002. 1 Tahiliani was given a disciplinary warning in December 2001, and in an annual evaluation in February 2002, Tahiliani for the first time received a rating of “below expectations.” Tahiliani claims that these actions were in retaliation for her filing a charge of discrimination against her then supervisor, Dr. Winfried Paul, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 2

To establish a prima fade case of illegal retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must show: “(1) protected employee activity; (2) adverse action by the employer either after or contemporaneous with the employee’s protected activity; and (3) a causal connection between the employee’s protected activity and the employer’s adverse action.” Williams v. Philadelphia Housing Authority Police Dept., 380 F.3d 751, 759 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The parties agree that Tahiliani’s complaint against a former supervisor was protected activity. 3 The *217 District Court found that because Tahiliani’s negative evaluation would have eventually led to lower compensation, she had suffered an adverse employment action. Assuming, arguendo, that she suffered an adverse action, we agree with the District Court that she faded to establish a causal connection between her protected activity and the adverse action.

“[W]here the temporal proximity is not so close as to be unduly suggestive, we have recognized that timing plus other evidence may be an appropriate test.” Thomas v. Town of Hammonton, 851 F.3d 108, 114 (3d Cir. 2003). Here, Tahiliani initially filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC in February 2001. The EEOC dismissed her charges and gave her a right-to-sue letter in September 2001. The actions about which she complains occurred in December 2001 (the disciplinary warning), and February 2002 (the annual evaluation). As the actions took place several months after she first filed charges with the EEOC, the timing is not unduly suggestive. Tahiliani suggests that the retaliation may have been prompted by her attorney’s November 2001 letter to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, asking that it reopen her case. However, as the District Court pointed out, “[i]t is illogical to believe that having refrained from retaliating after each [of the previous EEOC filings], and indeed having given Tahiliani a ‘meets expectations’ performance review after receiving the filings, 4 Bayer would nevertheless seize the opportunity to begin retaliating after receiving a petition to reopen an EEOC complaint which had terminated in its favor.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 8. Further, Tahiliani presented no evidence to show that the individuals involved in her disciplinary warning and her evaluation had any knowledge of the November 2001 letter. 5

In addition, the “other evidence” in this case does not suggest a causal link. The disciplinary warning Tahiliani received was based on a November 2001 e-mail Tahiliani sent her supervisor, which was found to be insubordinate. The February 2002 evaluation was a regularly-scheduled evaluation, and her negative rating was based in part on a failure to address issues raised in prior evaluations, such as poor interpersonal skills and a lack of cooperation. We agree with the District Court that the evidence does not support a causal connection. The District Court thus correctly granted summary judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.