With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". if believed by a reasonable trier of fact, would allow a finding of no unlawful discrimination, then “ ‘the McDonnell Douglas framework — with its presumptions and burdens’ — disappear[s], and the sole remaining issue [is] ‘discrimination vel non.’ ” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2106, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (citation omitted). At summary judgment in an employment discrimination case, a court should examine the record as a whole, just as a jury would, to determine whether a jury could reasonably find an invidious discriminatory purpose on the part of an employer. See Howley, 217 F.3d at 151; Stern v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 131 F.3d 305, 314 (2d Cir.1997); cf. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976) (<HOLDING>). A court is to examine “the entire record to

A: holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence
B: holding that an invidious discriminatory purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts
C: holding that parties may stipulate to facts from which jurisdiction may be inferred
D: holding that a prosecutors motive may often be inferred from the totality of relevant facts
B.