With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". discharge claim because it was filed after Plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff claims his next most recent EEOC filing is a harassment complaint against Jerome Hairston dated April 19, 1999. Almost fifteen months passed between Plaintiffs protected EEOC activity and his discharge on July 14, 2000. Similarly, Plaintiffs environmental complaints occurred in March and April of 1999 and he wrote letters to various politicians in May of 1999. “A lengthy time lapse between the employer becoming aware of the protected activity and the alleged adverse employment action ... negates any inference that a causal connection exists between the two.” Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 657 (4th Cir.1998). See also Causey v. Balog, 162 F.3d 795, 803 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) Plaintiff presents no direct evidence of a

A: holding that three to five months is a short enough time lapse between eeo activity and reprisal to establish a causal connection
B: holding that a three month interval between protected activity and adverse act is too long standing alone to establish an inference of retaliation
C: holding that an eight month interval between the two events is not strongly suggestive of a causal link
D: holding that absent other evidence a thirteenmonth interval between an eeo charge and alleged retaliatory termination was too long to establish a causal link
D.