With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in McDonnell Douglas Corp.). 43 . McGarry v. Board of County Comm’rs of Pitkin County, 175 F.3d 1193, 1201 (10th Cir.1999) (citing Griffith v. Colorado, 17 F.3d 1323 (10th Cir.1994)); Cole, 43 F.3d at 1381. 44 . Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1957 *25 (D.Kan. February 1, 2002)(quoting Burrus v. United Tel. Co. of Kan., Inc., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir.1982)(internal quotations omitted)). 45 . 996 F.2d 1155, 1163 (11th Cir. 1993). 46 . Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 5l) at 20. 47 . Goldsmith, 996 F.2d at 1163. ("The defendant’s awareness of the protected statement, however, may be established by circumstantial evidence.") (citations omitted). 48 . Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc., 164 F.3d 545, 550 (10th Cir.1999). 49 . See Id. (<HOLDING>). 50 . Garcia-Paz v. Swift Textiles, Inc., 873

A: holding that closeness in time between the alleged retaliatory acts and the protected conduct raises a genuine issue as to a causal connection
B: holding in the context of a title vii retaliation claim that a twoyear gap between the plaintiffs protected activity and the claimed retaliatory act proves fatal to plaintiffs assertion that there is a causal connection
C: holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint
D: holding the closeness in time between the plaintiffs complaint and the defendants demand for his resignation or firing supports an inference of retaliatory motive
A.