With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". incident and the suspension, investigation, and warning that followed. Doc. 88 at 16 (citing Doc. 90-4). The evidence before this Court does not indicate or suggest that Moffitt “lay in wait” to avoid legal liability as to retaliation. Here, the temporal gap of almost one year is insufficient, alone, to create an inference of causation. And the-additional evidence that Stephen points to relates to actions and e-mails from December 2013, approximately ten months before Stephen’s discharge. Further, Stephen’s intervening act of unconsented touching and stating that he would “pop a cap” in another co-worker, thereby violating the zero tolerance policy against workplace violence is sufficient to break the causal chain. Henderson v. FedEx Express, 442 Fed.Appx. 502, 506 (11th Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>). Stephen has not established a prima

A: holding that an intervening act of misconduct by the plaintiff can break the causal link between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action
B: holding that a plaintiff can establish a causal link by showing that the employers decision  was based in part on knowledge of the employees protected activity
C: holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient
D: holding that intervening misconduct can sever the temporal proximity connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment
A.