Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of a federal constitutional right and an allegedly retaliatory action[,]” Gorman-Bakos v. Cornell Coop. Extension, 252 F.3d 545, 554 (2d Cir.2001), some district courts have generally concluded that “a passage of two months between the protected activity and the adverse employment action seems to be the dividing line.” Cunningham v. Consol. Edison Inc., No. 03 Civ. 3522, 2006 WL 842914, at *19, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22482, at *55-56 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2006) (collecting cases). However, because the Second Circuit has found periods well beyond two months to be sufficient to suggest a causal relationship under certain circumstances, courts must carefully consider the time lapse in light of the entire record. See, e.g., Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 622 F.2d 43, 45-46 (2d Cir.1980) ; see also Richardson v. N.Y. State Dep’t of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding eightmonth gap between eeoc complaint and retaliatory action suggested a causal relationship
B. holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury
C. holding that the more than three month gap between the plaintiffs eeoc complaint and the allegedly adverse action was insufficient to show causation
D. holding that a close temporal proximity between a public employees speech and a defendants actions suggested a causal relationship
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.