With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence of causality to establish a prima face case uniformly hold that the temporal proximity must be ‘very close.’ ” Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001). Courts have generally accepted time periods of a few days up to a few months, and have seldom accepted time lapses outside of a year in length. See Brodetski v. Duffey, 141 F.Supp.2d 35, 43 (D.D.C.2001). The District Court for the District of Columbia has held that a matter of weeks, and of three to five months is a short enough time lapse between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory conduct to establish a causal connection. See, e.g., Goos v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, 715 F.Supp. 2, 3-4 (D.D.C.1989) (<HOLDING>); Castle v. Bentsen, 867 F.Supp. 1, 3

A: holding that a lapse of two months as is the case here is sufficient to show a causal connection and the district court erred in holding otherwise
B: holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection
C: holding that five weeks constituted a short enough time lapse to establish a causal connection
D: holding that three to five months is a short enough time lapse between eeo activity and reprisal to establish a causal connection
C.