With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Both Plaintiffs briefing and his testimony, consistent with Montgomery’s declaration, indicate that what precipitated Montgomery’s parking lot communication to Martin, that he wanted Plaintiff out of his section, was the revelation that after requesting the safety boots from Montgomery, Plaintiff had obtained approval elsewhere for the safety boots without Montgomery’s knowledge. Montgomery’s displeasure with how Plaintiff handled the boot situation, by going above or around Montgomery without Montgomery’s knowledge and bringing this to his attention in the parking lot discussion, provides a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for his request to Martin to move Plaintiff out of Montgomery’s section. See Slatkin v. Univ. of Redlands, 88 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1157, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 480 (2001) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). Martin,

A: holding that termination of individuals employment for making personal phone calls was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for discharge
B: recognizing that even a personal grudge can constitute a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment decision
C: holding that even an incorrect belief that an employees performance is inadequate can be a legitimate reason for an adverse employment action
D: holding that drugrelated misconduct is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination
B.