With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". filed with the EEOC. We agree. Where an adverse employment action occurs very close in time after an employer learns of a protected activity, such temporal proximity between the events is significant enough to constitute evidence of a causal connection. Mickey v. Zeidler Tool and Die Co., 516 F.3d 516, 525 (6th Cir.2008). “But where some time elapses between when the employer learns of a protected activity and the subsequent adverse employment action, the employee must couple temporal proximity with other evidence of retaliatory conduct to establish causality.” Id. A time lag of seven months normally cannot support an inference of a causal link. See DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 421 (6th Cir.2004); see also Parnell v. West, No. 95-2131, 1997 WL 271751, at *3 (6th Cir. May 21,1997) (<HOLDING>). Wilson filed her charge of discrimination

A: holding that previous sixth circuit cases that have permitted a prima facie case to be made based on the proximity of time have all been short periods of time usually less than six months
B: holding that temporal proximity did not support a prima facie case where the employer was contemplating the transfer before it learned of the suit
C: holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision
D: holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
A.