Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the subject: Plaintiff included a copy of the 2001 EEOC Complaint with his application on June 30, 2005 — twelve days before Plaintiffs interview with Schlem-mer. {See Michael Henshaw Decl. ¶ 4, June 19, 2007) Plaintiff had earlier stated at oral argument that it was Schlemmer who first brought up the 2001 EEOC Complaint. (Mem.Op.4, Apr. 4, 2007) The only genuine issue is which party first broached the subject. For purposes of Plaintiffs prima facie case, it is sufficient that Defendant was aware of the protected activity, regardless of which party first brought up the issue. Defendant argues, however, that in Title VII retaliation cases, “generally the passage of time ... tends to negate the infer- enee of discrimination.” Price, 380 F.3d at 213; see also Dowe, 145 F.3d at 657 . Although Defendant’s argument is true,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that although evidence that the alleged adverse action occurred shortly after the employer became aware of the protected activity is sufficient to make a prima facie causation case the opposite is equally true  a lengthy time lapse between the employer becoming aware of the protected activity and the alleged adverse employment action  negates any inference that a causal connection exists between the two
B. holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation
C. holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection
D. holding that sufficient evidence of causation existed where adverse employment action occurred less than two months after protected activity
E. holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.