With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for terminating an employee.” (Id. at 53-54). 2. Analysis a. Whether Clark can establish a prima facie retaliation claim APAC does not deny Clark participated in protected activity when he filed his December 14, 2007, EEOC charge nor does APAC deny that Clark suffered an adverse employment action when he was terminated on February 8, 2008, for alleged work rule violation. (Doc. 18 at 4, ¶ 13); (Doc. 19 at 25-26). Nonetheless, APAC declares that “temporal proximity alone does not establish the connection and plaintiffs sleeping on the job while on probation for another company violation was an intervening factor that would sever any potential connection between the two.” (Doc. 19 at 25-26 (citing e.g. Hankins v. Airtran Airways, Inc., 237 Fed.Appx. 513, at 520-21 (11th Circuit 2007) (<HOLDING>))). Although poorly delineated, Clark’s

A: holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection
B: holding that an intervening act of misconduct by the plaintiff can break the causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action
C: holding that temporal proximity between the alleged retaliators knowledge of a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to establish causal connection or retaliatory motive in some cases
D: holding that intervening misconduct can sever the temporal proximity connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment
D.