With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the Company’s articulated reasons for her discharge were not the true reasons, but were instead pretext to hide the Company’s real motive of discharging her in retaliation for filing a Workers Compensation claim. Plaintiffs primary contention is that the timing of the Company’s receipt of her application for workers’ compensation benefits and its immediate suspension of her employment that same day strongly suggests retaliation. Although the Court assumed that temporal proximity alone was sufficient to show causation for purposes of her prima facie case, temporal proximity alone is not sufficient to establish Plaintiffs burden of proving pretext or her ultimate burden of proving retaliatory discrimination. See Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc., 515 F.3d 531, 551 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Asmo v. Keane, Inc., 471 F.3d 588, 598 (6th

A: holding that a temporal link between protected activity and an adverse employment action may in some cases be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation
B: holding that temporal proximity together with evidence of a retaliatory atmosphere and the employers statement supported an inference of retaliation and satisfied the second part of the manzer pretext showing
C: holding that statistical evidence presented by the plaintiff showing an employers pattern of conduct toward a protected class is relevant to a showing of pretext and can create an inference of discrimination
D: holding that temporal proximity is insufficient in and of itself to establish that the employers nondiscriminatory reason for discharging an employee was in fact pretextual
B.