With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". than pain. Record at 419-20. Barry first claims that the jury may have awarded Eilene as much as $1,587,800 for lost salary and benefits. Barry arrives at this figure by multiplying $93,400 per year by the seventeen years left before Eilene's retirement. Barry argues that an award for future salary and benefits for more than five years is excessive as a matter of law. Barry supports his argument with case law involving wrongful discharge which found between three and four years to be reasonable periods of time for prospective employment. Haas Carriage, Inc. v. Berna, 651 N.E.2d 284, 290 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (finding three years, ten weeks to be reasonable period of time for compensation due to wrongful discharge); Remington Freight Lines v. Larkey, 644 N.E.2d 931, 942 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). Both cases cited by Barry state that the task

A: holding a delay of three months past the 120day window unreasonable
B: holding one and onehalf months establishes causation while three months is too long and does not
C: holding that a time lapse of nine months between the filing of a formal grievance and the adverse employment action undercuts any inference of causation
D: holding that period of three years and nine months of prospective employment was not unreasonable
D.