With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". teacher, only four months after plaintiff was terminated. See Paquin, 119 F.3d at 31 (“hir ing a less qualified person can support an inference of discriminatory motive (citing Harding v. Gray, 9 F.3d 150, 153-54 (D.C.Cir.1993)). If it is true that the Business and Finance Academy had to reduce the number of social studies teachers to one, it is questionable how only four months later it was able to accommodate a second social studies teacher, who happened to be younger than the plaintiff. See, e.g., Aka, 156 F.3d at 1293 (“If the jury can infer that the employer’s explanation is not only a mistaken one in terms of the facts, but a lie, that should provide even stronger evidence of discrimination.”); but see Simpson v. Midland-Ross Corp., 823 F.2d 937, 941 & n. 4 (6th Cir. 1987) (<HOLDING>). However, in light of the other facts

A: holding that the employers discharge of the plaintiff four months after the plaintiff filed a discrimination claim is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge
B: holding that where adea plaintiff was not replaced until three months after his discharge and the discharge occurred in the context of a reduction in force due to economic necessity  substantially weakenedhis  claim
C: holding that where the immediate cause or motivating factor of a discharge is the employees assertion of statutory rights the discharge is discriminatory under section 215a3 whether or not grounds for other discharge exist
D: holding that employees claim alleging discharge in violation of collective bargaining agreement precluded subsequent action under title vii for the same discharge
B.