With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contends that Plaintiff cannot show from the evidence of record that her termination was due to her informal complaints and transfer requests. (Doc. No. 30, pp. 18-19). “To establish a causal connection, a plaintiff must show that ‘the decision-makers were aware of the protected conduct’ and ‘that the protected activity and the adverse employment action were not wholly unrelated.’ ” Gupta, 212 F.3d at 590 (internal citations omitted). At a minimum, Plaintiff must show that the adverse action followed the protected conduct. Griffin v. GTE Fla., Inc., 182 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir.1999). In other words, Plaintiff must show a temporal link between the protected conduct and an adverse employment action. See Sullivan v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 170 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d

A: holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection
B: holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient
C: holding that no causal link existed between protected activity in february 1994 and adverse employment actions in late 1994 and early 1995
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.