With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". treatment.”). Plaintiff has presented absolutely no direct evidence showing a causal connection between her EEO “Allegation of Discrimination” on August 6, 1993, and her EEO “Complaint of Discrimination” on July 26, 1994, and the denial of a within-grade increase in 1995. Indeed, Plaintiff has presented no argument whatsoever in regard to causation, once again choosing to remain silent in her Opposition and effectively conceding the argument to the Library. See generally Pl.’s Opp’n. While Plaintiff has not offered such an argument, even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff had sought to imply a retaliatory motive through proximity, her attempt would have failed as to these two allegations. Importantly, “[t]he cases that accept mere temporal proximity between an employer’s knowledge of p ) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 78 F.3d 654 (D.C.Cir.1996). However,

A: holding that almost a year between plaintiffs eeo activity and the adverse employment decision is too great a length of time to support an inference of reprisal
B: holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection
C: holding that three to five months is a short enough time lapse between eeo activity and reprisal to establish a causal connection
D: holding that a lapse of two months as is the case here is sufficient to show a causal connection and the district court erred in holding otherwise
C.