With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". have rejected any further procedural requirements imposed by either the EEO offices within the agencies or the EEOC itself. See Love, 404 U.S. at 526-27, 92 S.Ct. 616; Loe, 768 F.2d at 416-17; Bethel, 589 F.2d at 641-42; Coles, 531 F.2d at 614-15; Sanchez, 431 F.2d at 460-65. In accordance with section 1614.106(c) of the Code, plaintiff sent the agency’s OCR five signed letters in late December 1996 and early January 1997 that provided sufficiently precise statements of the alleged retaliatory acts and clearly identified the parties involved. These letters contained more than enough information about all five incidents to put the agency on notice of plaintiffs retaliation allegations. Plaintiff stated that he considered the original submissions as sufficiently formal (D.D.C.1995) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs extensive filings establish no

A: holding that the plaintiff made a prima facie case even though there was no evidence of causal connection other than the fact that the plaintiff was fired after bringing a lawsuit
B: holding that sufficient evidence of causation existed where adverse employment action occurred less than three months after the protected activity
C: holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim
D: holding that a causal connection existed based on the time plaintiff first became vulnerable to retaliation even though that time occurred three years after plaintiff engaged in protected activity
D.