With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that everyone called Dekarske “Gramps” and that it had more or less become his nickname. There is no evidence, however, that Feltman was aware that other FedEx employees were calling Dekarske Gramps and this is not evidence which requires a conclusion, without inference, that Feltman terminated Dekarske with discriminatory intent. By contrast, calling an employee “an old man” ten to twenty times in connection with complaints that he is “slow,” is the type of evidence that has been found sufficiently patent to constitute direct evidence of discriminatory intent and could be viewed as such by the Court for purposes of summary judgment. However, direct evidence of discriminatory remarks must also relate those remarks to the decision to terminate the employee. Geiger, 579 F.3d at 621 (<HOLDING>) (alteration in original) (internal quotation

A: holding that the party asserting notice error has the burden of demonstrating prejudice
B: holding that burden of demonstrating coverage rests with the insured
C: holding that statements unrelated to the decisional process itself cannot suffice to satisfy the plaintiffs burden  of demonstrating animus
D: holding that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the action should be transferred
C.