With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". subjected to inappropriate sexual comments on a “regular” basis; pornographic photos and offensive signs in her locker and workspace; and “‘saluting’ by male coworkers” who would grab their genitals and make “ ‘hoo-ha’ noises” as she passed. Id. at 632. Though we held a reasonable person, may consider this conduct to be unwelcome severe or pervasive harassment, we found no evidence the plaintiff considered it unwelcome during the time frame at issue. See id. Our decision rested almost entirely on the fact the plaintiff never made timely complaints about the alleged harassment, either formally or informally. See id. at 632 & nn. 16-17. This reasoning has doomed plaintiffs in other cases, too. See, e.g., Souther v. Posen Constr., Inc., 523 Fed.Appx. 352, 355 (6th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Other cases have looked to the plaintiffs

A: holding that a reasonable jury could find pretext for a termination where the plaintiff stated that her work was satisfactory and there was no indication that the plaintiffs statement was either incredible or fanciful
B: holding that summary judgment was appropriate where plaintiffs admissions in her deposition undermined her claims
C: holding a jury could not find the advances unwelcome where the plaintiff never complained to the harassef or anyone else notwithstanding the plaintiffs afterthefact statement in her deposition the conduct was unwelcome
D: holding at summary judgment that the plaintiff had to show a reasonable jury could find the defendants allegedly anticompetitive conduct was a material cause of plaintiffs injury
C.