Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
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. . 50 . Garcia-Paz v. Swift Textiles, Inc., 873
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the closeness in time between the plaintiffs complaint and the defendants demand for his resignation or firing supports an inference of retaliatory motive
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 that temporal proximity between the alleged retaliators knowledge of a protected activity and an adverse employment action may be sufficient to establish causal connection or retaliatory motive in some cases
E. holding that closeness in time between the alleged retaliatory acts and the protected conduct raises a genuine issue as to a causal connection
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.