With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove her employer’s retaliatory motive played a part in the decision to terminate her. Gilooly v. Mo. Dep’t of Health and Senior Servs., No. 04-2460, 2005 WL 2086428, 421 F.3d 734, 739, slip op. at 8 (8th Cir.2005) (citing Kipp v. Mo. Highway and Transp. Comm’n, 280 F.3d 893, 896-97 (8th Cir.2002)). A plaintiff may also satisfy the causation element by demonstrating a close temporal proximity between a sexual harassment complaint and discharge. See, e.g., Turner v. Gonzales, No. 04-3426, 2005 WL 2077090, 421 F.3d 688 (8th Cir.2005) (finding five days be tween filing of a sexual harassment complaint and discharge sufficient to meet the causation element of plaintiffs prima facie case of retaliation); Sherman v. Runyon, 235 F.3d 406 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Despite the two-month lapse between

A: holding that by itself three and onehalf months was insufficient to prove causation
B: holding two days is sufficient to prove causation
C: holding that a two month period might be enough  to prove the causation prong
D: holding that sufficient evidence of causation existed where adverse employment action occurred less than two months after protected activity
B.