With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” Id. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089(citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817). The Court finds that none of the actions plaintiff complains about constitute adverse actions sufficient to establish a case of retaliation or, alternatively, that plaintiff has failed to rebut the defendant’s legitimate explanation for its actions. First, the plaintiff claims the defendant retaliated against him by reassigning him from the stock room to the building services department. However, plaintiff did not testify that this assignment was a less desirable assignment; rather, when asked whether the assignment was less desirable, he stated, “Wel s & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, 999 F.Supp. 97, 106 (D.D.C.1998) (<HOLDING>). Next, plaintiff claims he was denied the

A: holding that plaintiff established a prima facie claim of retaliation because the defendants failure to transfer her out of her abusive working environment could be viewed as an adverse personnel action and there was a causal link between the filing of plaintiffs complaint and the defendants failure to transfer her
B: holding that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under title vii must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity that she was subjected to an adverse employment action by her employer and that there was a causal link between the two
C: holding that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding her retaliation claim because she failed to offer any evidence of a causal relationship between her involvement in protected activity and the adverse employment action
D: holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action
A.