With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir.2004). The Fourth Circuit even characterized it “as a very close question” but concluded that a prima facie case had been made “because a reasonable trier of fact could conclude” there was causation. See id. (emphasis added). Additionally, the Fourth Circuit has held that establishing a prima facie case is, quite unremarkably, a “less onerous burden” than is conclusively establishing a causal connection. See Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc., 871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th Cir.1989); see also Karpel v. Inova Health Sys. Servs., 134 F.3d 1222, 1229 (4th Cir.1998) (“Although Karpel presents little or no direct evidence of a causal connection between her protected activity and Inova’s adverse action, little is required.”); McNaim v. Sullivan, 929 F.2d 974, 980 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). But see, e.g., Kelley v. Goodyear Tire &

A: holding that where evidence showed plaintiffs supervisor considered transferring plaintiff the day before she was served with plaintiffs lawsuit there was no causal connection showing that the transfer was retaliatory
B: holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct
C: holding that the plaintiff made a prima facie case even though there was no evidence of causal connection other than the fact that the plaintiff was fired after bringing a lawsuit
D: holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence
C.