With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Morawski was concerned about these comments, that Morawski consented to the monitoring of the “Open Line,” and that Morawski made the decision to terminate Plaintiff within a year of those comments. Although this evidence is far from conclusive proof that a causal connection existed between the protected conduct and the adverse áction, the temporal proximity between the protected conduct, Morawski’s behavior indicating concern about that conduct, and the adverse action, -is sufficient evidence to satisfy the third element of a prima facie retaliation claim. See EEOC v. Avery Dennison Corp., 104 F.3d 858, 861 (6th Cir.1997) (stating that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation “is not onerous”); Polk v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 801 F.2d 190, 197 (6th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Although Plaintiff has presented a prima

A: recognizing temporal proximity when agency had knowledge of employees protected activity
B: holding that temporal proximity between the alleged retaliators knowledge of a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to establish causal connection or retaliatory motive in some cases
C: holding that intervening misconduct can sever the temporal proximity connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment
D: holding that the combination of temporal proximity and negative statements concerning the employees protected activity can create a triable question of fact on the issue of retaliatory motivation even in the presence of legitimate performancerelated reasons for terminating the plaintiff
D.