With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". could conclude that the [adverse employment action] would not have occurred but for his engagement in protected activity.” Eckerman v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety, 686 F.3d 202, 209 (6th Cir.2010). A causal link can be shown through direct or circumstantial evidence. Dye v. Office of the Racing Comm’n, 702 F.3d 286, 305 (6th Cir.2012). The Sixth Circuit has recognized that, in some cases, temporal proximity alone between the protected activity and the adverse employment action may be sufficient to establish a causal connection in a retaliation c Fed.Appx. 275, 285 (6th Cir.2004) (“[T]he passage of less than three weeks between [the employer’s] receipt of the charges and the adverse actions gives rise to an inference of discrimination”); DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 421-22 (6th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); but see Philbrick v. Holder, 583 Fed.Appx.

A: holding that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under title vii must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity that she was subjected to an adverse employment action by her employer and that there was a causal link between the two
B: holding that twentyfour days between protected activity and termination is sufficient to infer existence of causal connection
C: holding that the passage of only twentyone days between the plaintiffs filing of an eeoc charge and his termination gave rise to an inference of a causal connection between the two events sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation
D: holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action
C.