With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of temporal proximity, the Defendants maintain that the Plaintiff cannot establish a causal connection between his protected activity and his termination. In response, the Plaintiff draws the Court to a different protected activity — the filing of the instant Complaint seeking unpaid overtime under the FLSA on September 4, 2012. The Plaintiff stresses that he was fired three weeks after filing the Complaint in the instant case. In his view, the temporal proximity between the filing of the Complaint and his termination is sufficient to establish a causal connection between the two. “In order to establish a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action, plaintiff must produce enough evidence of a retaliatory motive such that a reasonable jur 490 (6th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Plaintiff has presented

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 five weeks constituted a short enough time lapse to establish a causal connection
C: holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection
D: holding that a 7month time period between the protected activity and the adverse employment action is too indirect to satisfy the causal connection requirement
C.