With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". when placing him on the 2012 PIP. 3. Termination As discussed above, the ERC made the final decision to terminate Dr. Chawla’s employment, but Dr. Chawla provides no evidence that the ERC was aware of his complaints. Ms. Kaplan’s investigation report contained no information regarding Dr. Chawla’s protected activity. See generally Docket Nos. 37-8, 37-9, 37-10, 37-11. Mr. Facchinello states that he did not know whether Dr. Chawla “complained of discrimination or retaliation at the time while he worked at LMC.” Docket No. 39-6, at 2, ¶ 5. Dr. Chawla fails to rebut this statement or identify evidence upon which a reasonable juror could conclude that Mr. Pierce was aware of Dr. Chawla’s discrimination complaints. See Hinds v. Sprint/United Mgm’t Co., 523 F.3d 1187, 1203 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as discussed above, Dr. Chawla

A: holding that in addition to temporal proximity plaintiff must show further evidence supporting a causal connection
B: holding that in order to show a causal connection plaintiff must present evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that those who decided to fire him had knowledge of his protected activity
C: holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury
D: holding that to establish a causal connection plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him knew of the employees protected activity
B.