With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Burlington N., 548 U.S. at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405. Taking Stone’s allegations as true, Lockley retaliated against Stone by hindering her professional development, impeding her physical transfer to a new office, and limiting her telecommuting privileges once she arrived in Houston. Especially in light of the less stringent standards applied to pro se pleadings, this is enough to state a claim for retaliation. Cf. Burlington N., 548 U.S. at 69, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (“[T]o retaliate by excluding an employee from a weekly training lunch that contributes significantly to the employee’s professional advancement might well deter a reasonable employee from complaining about discrimination.”); Rodriguez-Vives v. Puerto Rico Firefighters Corps of Puerto Rico, 743 F.3d 278, 285 (1st Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>); Crawford v, Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 974 (11th

A: holding that plaintiff stated claim for retaliation where employer denied her certain assignments and subjected her to repeated unpleasant and inequitable treatment
B: holding that an employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea
C: holding that conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive where the female plaintiffs supervisor frequently tried to get plaintiff to date him using many direct as well as indirect propositions for sex including following her into the restroom repeated attempts to touch her breasts place his hands down her pants and pull off her pants and enlisting the assistance of others to hold her while he attempted to grope her
D: holding retaliation claim not reasonably related to discrimination charges where eeoc complaint set forth retaliation as a motive for plaintiffs termination and not as a motive for plaintiffs overtime assignments
A.