With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affi-ant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.”). Boulton likewise failed to show that similarly situated employees who were not in his protected class were not terminated. Boulton identified one comparable employee, a fellow manager -in his division of IIE, whose job was not eliminated. This was insufficient to show preferential treatment of similarly situated employees, however, for Boulton presented no evidence that the employee he identified was not a member of his protected class. If IIE had replaced Boulton, it would not matter whether his successor was a member of his protected class or not. See Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 146 (D.C.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). But the inference of discrimination that

A: recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous
B: holding that in title vii disparate treatment case in order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case the plaintiff must proffer evidence among other things that she performed her job according to her employers legitimate expectations if the plaintiff establishes the prima facie case the presumption shifts the burden to the employer to produce a legitimate nondiseriminatory reason for its actions
C: holding that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of age discrimination based upon a showing that she was a member of the protected group she was qualified and capable of doing her job she was discharged and that her manager called her old woman thus evincing agebased animus sufficient to demonstrate discriminatory intent
D: holding that a plaintiff in a discrimination case need not demonstrate that she was replaced by a person outside her protected class in order to carry her burden of establishing a prima facie case
D.