With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Def.’s Mot. at 13. Accordingly, the court turns directly to the dispositive question: whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the defendant’s asserted non-retaliatory reason was not the actual reason and that the employer intentionally retaliated against the employee. See Brady, 520 F.3d at 494; Laurent, 544 F.Supp.2d at 22 n. 3 (concluding that the defendant’s articulation of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the plaintiffs termination also rendered an examination of the prima facie case of retaliation unnecessary). At a minimum, the plaintiff must offer some evidence of a causal relationship between his involvement in protected activity and his nonselection. See Cooke v. Rosenker, 601 F.Supp.2d 64, 79 (D.D.C.2009) (<HOLDING>); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,

A: 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
B: holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection
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
C.