With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the plaintiffs argument in Weston v. Pennsylvania, in which Weston contended that his employer retaliated against him by suspending him after he complained of sexual harassment to his supervisor. See 251 F.3d 420, 424 (3d Cir.2001), abrogated in part on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345. Although Weston’s supervisor may have harbored retaliatory animus and “did play a role in the suspensions,” a panel of three impartial hearing officers “ultimately decided” to issue the suspensions. Id. at 433. We concluded that Weston failed to show causation, in part because the hearing officers who made the suspension decisions had no retaliatory animus. Id.; see also Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 198 F.3d 403, 415 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). As in Weston, Hussein asserts that a

A: 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
B: holding that the plaintiff failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity
C: holding in the title vii context that the plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him know of the employees plaintiffs protected activity
D: holding that to establish a causal connection plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him knew of the employees protected activity
B.