With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for a reasonable jury to find that the employer’s asserted non-[retaliatory] reason was not the actual reason and that the employer intentionally [retaliated] against the employee on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin?” Brady, 520 F.3d at 494. In other words, did the plaintiff “show both that the reason was false, and that ... [retaliation] was the real reason.” Weber v. Battista, 494 F.3d 179, 186 (D.C.Cir.2007) (alterations in original and internal quotations omitted) (quoting St. Mary’s Honor Ctr., 509 U.S. at 515, 113 S.Ct. 2742). The court must consider whether the jury could “infer [retaliation] from the plaintiffs prima facie case and any other evidence the plaintiff offers to show that the actions were [retaliatory] or that the non-[reta D.D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiff may establish a causal

A: holding that causal connection exists where investigation was initially caused in significant part by the disclosure
B: holding that plaintiff cannot establish pretext because she is unable to show any causal connection her complaints and the adverse action
C: holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury
D: holding that the plaintiff demonstrated pretext in part by establishing a causal connection
D.