With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". plaintiff engaged in protected activities and the proximity in time between the protected action and the allegedly retaliatory employment decision. Miller, 797 F.2d at 731-32. In this case, the record contains evidence that Yartzoff’s supervisors were aware of his Title VII complain sors issued the sub-average performance rating in late April 1980, approximately three weeks after Yartzoff, the supervisors, and the EEO counsellor met to discuss the complaints on April 4, 1980, and two weeks after the civil rights office investigated the charges in mid-April. Additional job duties were transferred away from Yartzoff in February 9, 1981, less than two months after the civil rights office finished investigating his charges at Corvallis on December 12, 1980. See Miller, 797 F.2d at 731-32 (<HOLDING>). Thus, Yartzoff set forth sufficient evidence

A: holding discharge less than two months after plaintiff filed a sexual harassment complaint with management and ten days after filing a complaint with state human rights office provided prima facie evidence of a causal connection between protected activity and retaliation
B: holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action
C: holding that sufficient evidence of causation existed where adverse employment action occurred less than two months after protected activity
D: holding that an employers knowledge of protected activity and the discharge of employees less than two months after negotiation of eeoc settlement agreements was sufficiently probative of a causal link to withstand summary judgment
D.