With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. (footnote omitted). Hartt’s objection, however, minimizes the importance of temporal proximity in retaliation cases. The First Circuit has held that for claims under FMLA and Title VII alike, “[a] showing of discharge soon after the employee engages in an activity specifically protected by [statute] is indirect proof of a causal connection between the firing and the activity because it is strongly suggestive of retaliation.” Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 110 (1st Cir.1988). The parties do not dispute that the adverse employment actions of reassignment and termination occurred only a few weeks after Mr. Brown engaged in the protected activity of taking medical leave. That alone may be sufficient to demonstrate a retaliatory motive. See Hodgens, 144 F.3d at 167-168 (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). But Mr. Brown presents

A: recognizing that protected conduct closely followed by adverse action may justify an inference of retaliatory motive
B: holding that an elevenmonth gap in time is within the range that has been found to support an inference of retaliatory motive
C: holding that a temporal link between protected activity and an adverse employment action may in some cases be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation
D: 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
A.