Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
his performance evaluation in September 2010, and by subjecting him to unwarranted disciplinary action. The October 2009 denial of promotion occurred more than six months after Nicholson engaged in protected activity, and the changes to Nicholson’s performance evaluation in September 2010 occurred 18 months after the protected activity. A time period greater than six months, without more, is not a sufficiently short period of time to satisfy the causal connection element of a retaliation claim. See Cooper, 795 F.2d at 1272; see also Clay v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 501 F.3d 695, 718 (6th Cir.2007) (finding no causal connection where gap between protected activity and adverse employment action was six months); Cecil v. Louisville Water Co., 301 Fed.Appx. 490, 502 (6th Cir.2008) . The approximately two-month gap between
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that sufficient evidence of causation existed where adverse employment action occurred less than three months after protected activity
B. holding that sufficient evidence of causation existed where adverse employment action occurred less than three months after the protected activity
C. holding that adverse employment activity that occurred 10 months and 17 months after protected activity was insufficient on its own to create a reasonable inference of causation
D. holding that sufficient evidence of causation existed where adverse employment action occurred less than two months after protected activity
E. holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.