With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". decision was motivated in part by a discriminatory animus, even though other factors besides the discrimination influenced the employer’s decision. See Sher v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 488 F.3d 489, 508 n.22 (1st Cir. 2007) (“In a mixed motive case, the plaintiff would only have to establish that national origin ... discrimination was a motivating factor in the analysis, rather than the sole basis for the decision.”) Additionally, the plaintiff need not present direct evidence of discrimination to pursue a mixed-motive theory. Rather, “[a] plaintiff is entitled to prove discrimination by circumstantial evidence alone.” Chadwick v. WellPoint, Inc., 561 F.3d 38, 46 (1st Cir. 2009); see also Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 98-99, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Once the plaintiff demonstrates that his

A: holding that direct evidence of discrimination is not required to prove discrimination in mixed motive cases under title vii
B: holding that title vii does not mention much less require that a plaintiff make a heightened showing through direct evidence in mixedmotive cases
C: holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotive theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination
D: holding that the mixedmotive framework does not apply to retaliation cases under title vii
B.