With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". against the plaintiff based on race. See, e.g., Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 217 (4th Cir.2007); Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 279-80 (4th Cir.2000). Rather, the focus concerns whether plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext within the meaning of Reeves and its Fourth Circuit progeny. See, e.g., Hux, 451 F.3d at 314-19; Dugan v. Albemarle Cty. Sch. Bd., 293 F.3d 716, 722 (4th Cir.2002). In asserting that the ECSU’s justifications for promoting Gray are pretex-tual, Cherry fist argues that ECSU tailored the position description for captain to mirror Gray’s experience. See [D.E, 37-1] 19-21, Notably, however, ECSU initially reposted-the position before either Gray or Cherry applied, College, 57 F.3d 369, 383-84 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Next, Cherry árgues- that his experience was

A: holding that title vii does not prescribe an employers determination of preferred or required job requirements
B: holding that because plaintiff did not apply for a job he could not be rejected in a title vii case
C: holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii
D: holding that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect a government official who is sued in an official capacity under title vii because title vii does not impose personal liability
A.