With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the rule or that, if [s]he did[,] ... employees [outside her protected class] who engaged in similar acts were not punished similarly.” Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 1086, 1090 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the event a plaintiff is terminated for multiple violations of a work rule, she may establish her prima facie case by creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she actually committed one of the violations. See Wiseman v. New Breed Logistics, Inc., 72 F.Supp.3d 672, 681, 2014 WL 7272646, at *7 (N.D.Miss. Dec. 18, 2014). Courts in this circuit have split on whether a plaintiff may state a prima facie case merely by denying she violated a relevant work rule. See Moore v. Miss. Dep’t of Human Servs., 6 F.Supp.3d 713, 716 (S.D.Miss.2014) (<HOLDING>). In recognition of this split, recent

A: recognizing a split of authority
B: recognizing split between thornton v univ of miss med ctr no 309cv023 2011 wl 4373942 at 6 sdmiss sep 19 2011 affidavit insufficient and coleman v miller enters llc no 210cv296 2011 wl 4737580 at 2 sdmiss oct 6 2011 affidavit sufficient
C: recognizing circuit split
D: recognizing a split of authority on this issue
B.