With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Court will review whether a reasonable jury could conclude, based on the evidence submitted by plaintiff and drawing favorable inferences therefrom, that the alleged actions taken against plaintiff after August 12, 2003 were taken in retaliation for his protected activity. As defendant does not dispute that the supervisors in question were aware of plaintiffs protected activity and that he suffered adverse employment actions, the Court will examine whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the two were causally related. A plaintiff may establish a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action either through direct evidence of retaliatory animus, or by circumstantial evidence. See Sumner v. U.S. Postal Serv., 899 F.2d 203, 209 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Where there is no direct evidence of

A: holding that discrimination can be established through other evidence such as disparate treatment of fellow employees who engaged in similar conduct
B: holding that plaintiff may prove discriminatory motive by presenting evidence of conduct or statements by persons involved in the decisionmaking process that may be viewed as directly reflecting the alleged retaliatory attitude 
C: holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence
D: holding that a causal connection may be established indirectly with circumstantial evidence for example by showing that the protected activity was followed by discriminatory treatment or through evidence of disparate treatment of employees who engaged in similar conduct or directly through evidence of retaliatory animus
D.