With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 468 (quoting Sumner v. United States Postal Service, 899 F.2d 203, 209 (2d Cir.1990)). It is undisputed that Johnson complained to Cort Furniture’s management about what she believed constituted discriminatory practices at Cort Furniture. Thus, Johnson’s numerous complaints about discrimination and her refusal to “gather” more derogatory information to place in Aman’s file following Aman’s termination, separate and apart from her failure to attend the deposition, represent activities protected under Title VII. But the fact that her discharge did not immediately follow these activities does not undermine her claim. We have held that the “mere passage of time is not legally conclusive proof against retaliation.” Robinson v. S.E. Pa. Transp. Authority, 982 F.2d 892, 894-95 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The issue remains whether a reasonable jury

A: holding that the indictment was sufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement since it alleged that the defendants conduct occurred over a period of eight years
B: holding that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate retaliation for activities that occurred two years prior to the termination
C: holding that interference and retaliation are two separate theories that can be advanced under the fmla and that termination is evidence of retaliation
D: holding that discrimination and retaliation claims are considered distinct types of claims that must be raised independently if the retaliation occurred prior to the filing of the administrative charge
B.