Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
she was qualified for the positions which became available in March and no circumstantial evidence indicating that Kelly Services’s failure to offer these positions to her was related to her jury service. Because three months passed between Boutwell’s jury service in December and the alleged failure to offer her an available position in March, the two events are not “proximate” and there is, therefore, no inference that the two events are connected. See Hatch, - So.3d at -, 2009 WL 1716967 at *5. Furthermore, although the evidence indicates that Kelly Services was aware of Boutwell’s service on a jury, this evidence alone is not sufficient to demonstrate that her service was the sole motivating factor in the decision to not offer one of the Yutaka positions to her. Id. at -, *6 . Evidence indicating that three months after
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action
B. holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation without evidence that the decisionmaker knew about plaintiffs protected activity when he made the decision that resulted in the adverse action
C. holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct
D. holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.