With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ignoring the “series of events” that occurred between May 2006 and January 2007, and that those events establish the requisite causal connection. The anti-retaliation provision of the FCRA prohibits an employer from discriminating against a person for opposing an unlawful employment practice or for making a charge of discrimination. Fla. Stat. § 760.10(7). The district court correctly found that Jiles had not put forth any evidence to show a causal connection between the protected activity of his administrative charge of race discrimination in May 2006 and his January 2007 termination. Further, the district court did not err when it reasoned that the time-frame of eight months does not sufficiently proximate to establish a causal connection. Doc. 72 at 12; see Thomas, 506 F.3d at 1364 (<HOLDING>). We therefore find no error in the district

A: recognizing temporal proximity when agency had knowledge of employees protected activity
B: holding in a discrimination case that a close temporal proximity sufficient to survive summary judgment existed where the challenged employment action occurred one month after the protected activity
C: holding that a three and onehalf month temporal proximity is insufficient to create a jury issue on causation
D: holding that a three to four month period between the protected activity is not enough to show very close temporal proximity
D.