Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
duties of the Financial Aid Office. He too was not an at-will employee. Wallace State’s reasons for placing Hammons on administrative leave with full pay through her contract term and failure to renew her employment contract extended beyond issues in the Financial Aid Office, and neither Allen nor Bowie were responsible for, or in any way involved in, those other problems. Simply put, neither of these proposed comparators was “similarly situated in all relevant respects” or “nearly identical” to Hammons. See Wilson, 376 F.3d at 1091. Accordingly, the district court did not err by finding Hammons failed to meet the fourth prong of her prima facie disparate-treatment claim. IV. We likewise affirm the district court’s entry of summary 1 (S.D.Ala.1997), aff’d 140 F.3d 1043 (11th Cir.1998) . Hammons wrote the letter of grievance to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that twentyfour days between protected activity and termination is sufficient to infer existence of causal connection
B. holding that more than a year between the protected activity and the discharge is not close enough to support the causal connection requirement
C. holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint
D. holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection
E. holding that a 7month time period between the protected activity and the adverse employment action is too indirect to satisfy the causal connection requirement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.