With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". undisputed that Mr. Avila engaged in protected opposition to discrimination when the union filed a grievance on his behalf on September 2, 2003, alleging national origin discrimination. See Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 850 (9th Cir.2004) (indicating that lodging union grievance asserting discrimination constitutes protected activity). It is also undisputed that Mr. Avila suffered an adverse employment action when he was terminated. See Fye, 516 F.3d at 1228 (stating “termination ... is clearly an adverse employment action”). Finally, it is undisputed that Mr. Avila established a causal connection between his protected activity on September 2, 2003 and his termination nine days later. See Argo v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 452 F.3d 1193, 1202 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Mr. Avila established a prima facie

A: holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor
B: holding that twentyfour days between protected activity and termination is sufficient to infer existence of causal connection
C: holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection
D: holding that more than a year between the protected activity and the discharge is not close enough to support the causal connection requirement
B.