With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the claims against all the Defendants save Merrithew and DiCarlo are unsustainable because there is no evidence that they knew of the speech. In Gordon v. Marquis, 3:03-cv-01244 (AWT), 2007 WL 987553, at *10 (D.Conn., Mar. 31, 2007), the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case after finding that the plaintiff, a police officer in the City of Hartford who asserted a claim of First Amendment retaliation, did not show that the employees responsible for various adverse employment actions had knowledge of the plaintiffs protected speech. The court stated that “[a] causal connection cannot exist if the person allegedly responsible for the adverse action had no knowledge of the protected activity.” Id.; see also Golub v. City of New York, 334 F.Supp.2d 399, 409 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (<HOLDING>); Kalb v. Wood, 38 F.Supp.2d 260, 268

A: holding that temporal proximity between the alleged retaliators knowledge of a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to establish causal connection or retaliatory motive in some cases
B: holding that intervening misconduct can sever the temporal proximity connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment
C: holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection
D: holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection
A.