With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The court noted that the worker’s medical exams “revealed no abnormalities” and there was no “data concerning the level or amount of chemicals to which [she] was exposed or the mechanism of exposure.” Kuxhausen, 241 P.3d at 81. Like Dr. Keifer, Kuxhausen’s doctor testified only that there were substances listed on the Material Safety Data Sheets “that can make people sick,” with no supporting basis for concluding that those materials did make the claimant sick. Kuxhausen, 241 P.3d at 81. The court held that the doctor’s opinion was based on the logical fallacy that because the symptoms followed the exposure, they must be caused by it. “Such reasoning is nothing more than speculation.” Kuxhausen, 241 P.3d at 81; see also Elshaug v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2003 ND 177, 671 N.W.2d 784 (<HOLDING>). ¶27 According to Potter, such criticisms

A: holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment
B: holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment
C: holding sufficient evidence supported the departments conclusion that the worker failed to prove her sensitivity to chemicals was fairly traceable to her employment
D: holding that a pharmacologists sensitivity to chemicals which prevented her from working in a lab did not substantially limit her employment opportunities
C.