With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that a material factual issue can be created only in a situation not present here — where “the plaintiffs credentials [are] so superior to the credentials of the person selected for the job that ‘no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff for the job in question.’ ”). Turning to Kearney’s claims of retaliation in violation of the ADEA and NYSHRL, we agree with the district court that Kearney has proffered no record evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find the necessary causal connection between Kearney’s May 2000 complaint to the Rockland OER and the November 2002 and April 2003 promotions. See Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273-74, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Slattery v. Swiss Reins. Am. Corp., 248 F.3d

A: holding that although temporal proximity alone may show causation the proximity must be very close and action taken  20 months later suggests by itself no causality at all
B: holding that a three to four month period between the protected activity is not enough to show very close temporal proximity
C: holding that consent was valid despite close temporal proximity between the illegal entry and consent
D: holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation
A.