With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". unrelated.” Brungarb v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 231 F.3d 791, 799 (11th Cir.2000) (internal quotations omitted). To satisfy this showing, a plaintiff must generally establish “that the decision maker was aware of the protected conduct at the time of the adverse employment action.” Id. “[CJlose temporal proximity between the employee’s protected conduct and the adverse employment action is sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact of a causal connection.” Id. However, when an employer makes a tentative decision before protected activity occurs, the fact that an employer proceeds with such a decision is not evidence of causation. See Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 272, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). On appeal, Brown argues that there is

A: holding employee not terminated in bad faith because no evidence suggested that employer discharged employee in order to retain em ployees previously earned sales commissions
B: holding that where an em ployer contemplated transferring an employee before the employer learned that the employee filed a title vii suit the employers decision to proceed along lines previously contemplated though not yet definitively determined did not establish evidence of causality
C: holding that whether an employee decides to assist the charging party or refuses to assist the  employer the employer may not retaliate against the employee because this decision of the employee constitutes participation in an investigation or proceeding under title vii
D: holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct
B.