With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and of his participation in administrative investigations. See id.; Cohen, 686 F.2d at 796 (stating that an employer’s awareness is essential to showing a causal link). Proximity in time is apparent on the record: the transfers of job duties and the sub-average performance rating all occurred during the pendency of the administrative complaints and investigations. This inference of a causal link is strengthened by the closeness in time between particular events. See B. Schlei & P. Grossman, supra, at 559 & n. 145 (2d ed. 1983). The first series of transfers of job duties between August 1979 and February 1980 began less than three months after he filed his first administrative complaint. See Hochstadt v. Worcester Found, for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 318, 324-25 (D.Mass.) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir.1976). The

A: holding that a six month delay was unreasonable
B: holding that the more than three month gap between the plaintiffs eeoc complaint and the allegedly adverse action was insufficient to show causation
C: holding that party waived disqualification complaint by filing her motion six and onehalf months after learning of the potential conflict
D: holding that discharge six months after eeoc settlement and a month after an informal complaint satisfies causation requirement
D.