With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and Plaintiffs deemed resignation are limited to the following paragraph: Mr. Tutman notified CBS of his intention to file a Charge of Discrimination by correspondence dated October 20, 1995. CBS met with Mr. Tutman and his attorneys on November 13, 1995. During this meeting, Mr. Tutman’s attorneys requested an extension of the medical leave of absence to Mr. Mark Engstrom. Four days after the meeting, Mr. Mark Engstrom denied Mr. Tutman’s request for extension of medical leave of absence. (Pl.’s 12(N) Response ¶ 104 (citations omitted).) The most that Tutman shows is that CBS knew of his complaints at the time that it took the adverse action. However, knowledge is insufficient to establish a causal link. See Gibson v. Old Town Trolley Tours, 160 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the mere occurrence of the

A: holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law
B: holding that judgment as a matter of law was proper when the plaintiff did not present any evidence that the defendant was motivated by the eeoc complaint knowledge is necessary to establish causation but it is not sufficient
C: holding that it is not
D: holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment
B.