With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claims brought under the TCHRA, the court AFFIRMS the judgment in all other respects. REVERSED and REMANDED in part; AFFIRMED in part. 2 . See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Rios v. Rossotti, 252 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir.2001). 3 . Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 912 (5th Cir.1992)(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). 4 . See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., 530 U.S. 133, 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). 5 . See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). 6 . See Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-54, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). 7 . Nichols v. Loral Vought Sys. Corp., 81 F.3d 38, 41 (5th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). 8 . See Celestine v. PetrOleos de Venezuella SA, 266 F.3d 343, 356 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Blow v. City of San Antonio, 236 F.3d

A: holding that because there was no evidence before the court of any similarly situated employees who were promoted to a higher salary grade when plaintiff was denied a promotion plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote
B: holding that district court erred by requiring plaintiffs to show that they were better qualified than employees who were promoted in order to make a prima facie case
C: holding that fourth element of a prima facie case is satisfied when the employees who were more favorably treated were situated similarly to the plaintiff
D: holding that it was reversible error for district court to charge jury that plaintiffs were required in reduction of force case to show that they were clearly better qualified than the employees retained
B.