Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that Plaintiff did not, including training and recruiting, and the hospital changed from an ongoing enterprise with approximately 700 employees during Casanova’s tenure to a winding-down enterprise with approximately 300 employees during Plaintiffs tenure. 3. Summary judgment was proper on Plaintiffs retaliation claim because, on the facts deemed true, Plaintiff did not complain of discrimination when she requested a higher salary, and she did not suffer an adverse employment action. See Wrighten v. Metro. Hosps., Inc., 726 F.2d 1346, 1354 (9th Cir.1984) . Further, even if Plaintiff had made out a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a temporal link between protected activity and an adverse employment action may in some cases be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation
B. holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity
C. holding that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under title vii must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity that she was subjected to an adverse employment action by her employer and that there was a causal link between the two
D. holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action
E. holding that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding her retaliation claim because she failed to offer any evidence of a causal relationship between her involvement in protected activity and the adverse employment action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.