With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". actions took place, October, 2008, plaintiff was working for Dragonfly. Thus, its clear that if someone had any substantial control over the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of plaintiffs employment it was Dragonfly and not TSI. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that plaintiffs Title VII retaliation claim fails. It is important to note that regardless of whether TSI was plaintiffs employer, plaintiffs claim would have still failed. Although causal connection may be established due to the temporal proximity between the alleged retaliatory actions and the issuance of the Right to Sue letter, the defendants proffered reason for communicating with plaintiffs new employer was both legitimate and non-discriminatory. See DeCaire v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1, 19 (1st Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The defendants in this case did not take any

A: holding that standing alone even very close temporal proximity cannot operate as a proxy for a plaintiffs evidentiary requirement and is insufficient to carry a plaintiffs burden on the third prong of his prima facie case
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 close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation
D: holding in a discrimination case that a close temporal proximity sufficient to survive summary judgment existed where the challenged employment action occurred one month after the protected activity
C.