With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Director of Charter Schools. Def.’s Ex. 5, Fiegel Dep. 45:12-14. Lastly, plaintiff asserts that she is similarly situated to Houser, but she provides no explanation of how they are comparable. Fiegel testified at his deposition that Houser came to DOE as a grade 15 and that Houser has two programs — the Credit Enhancement for Charter Schools Facilities program and the State Per Pupil Incentive Funds for Charter Schools Facilities program — both of which are highly complicated financial management programs. Id. 44:3-22. Thus, plaintiffs attempts to establish her qualifications are unsuccessful because she cannot demonstrate that she was similarly situated to the comparators she provides who worked at or above a grade 14 level. See Nails v. England, 311 F.Supp.2d 116, 122 (D.D.C.2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Taylor, 350 F.3d at 1295

A: holding that a plaintiff had not established a prima facie case of race discrimination because she failed to show valid comparators and presented no other circumstantial evidence of discrimination
B: holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position
C: holding that plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of discrimination where plaintiff failed to meet minimum qualifications for job
D: holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination
B.