With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". O’Con-nor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 312, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996), the Supreme Court rejected a Court of Appeal’s requirement that a plaintiff must show that he was replaced by someone outside the age group protected by the ADEA to make out a prima facie case of age discrimination. The Court reasoned that “[t]he fact that one person in the protected class has lost out to another person in the protected class is ... irrelevant, so long as he has lost out because of his age. Or to put the point more concretely, there can be no great inference of age discrimination ... when a 40-year-old is replaced by a 39-year-old than when a 56-year-old is replaced by a 40-year-old.” Id.; see also EEOC v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 191 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). This Court finds Galambos’s showing that he

A: holding that general employment practices are relevant to eeoc investigation of individual disparate treatment claim
B: recognizing oconnors holding as applicable to disparate treatment adea cases
C: holding that there is no disparate impact claim under the adea
D: holding that disparate impact claims are not cognizable under the adea
B.