Task: Text Completion
Input (English): which would indicate there was no causal connection. Plaintiff has provided letters from The Sun’s attorney, however, indicating the company was aware of the charges filed with the EEOC as early as September 8, 1998. {See Pl.’s Opp. Ex. 1.) The filing of charges with the EEOC constitutes protected activity. See Karpel, 134 F.3d at 1229. The date on which the suit based on those charges was filed is irrelevant in establishing a causal connection between the filing of charges and an alleged retaliatory action. Plaintiff is entitled to all reasonable inferences that may be made in his favor, and an inference that may be drawn from the temporal proximity of the demotion with the filing of charges is that a causal connection exists. See McNairn v. Sullivan, 929 F.2d 974, 980 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Williams, 871 F.2d at 457. The Sun has 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury (B) holding that eight months between charges and dismissal created inference of causal connection (C) holding that a lapse of two months as is the case here is sufficient to show a causal connection and the district court erred in holding otherwise (D) holding that  1109a requires causal connection between breach and loss (E) holding that detention of approximately eight months violated due process
Output (English): (B)