With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that defendants’ employment decisions about plaintiffs were tainted by their disregard of plaintiffs first amendment rights. Correa-Martinez, 903 F.2d at 58. Plaintiffs must make a “fact-specific showing that a causal connection exists linking defendants’ conduct, as manifested in the adverse employment decision, to plaintiffs politics, that is, the plaintiff must have pled facts adequate to raise a plausible inference that he was subjected to discrimination based on his political affiliation or views.” Id. Plaintiffs have presented no such facts here. In sum, plaintiffs have failed to establish their prima fade case inasmuch as the Complaint does not meet the heightened pleading requirement established by the First Circuit in civil rights cases. See City of Lowell, 160 F.3d at 72 (<HOLDING>) As a result, the Court will dismiss the

A: holding that a bare conclusory allegation of an intent to discriminate is insufficient specific nonconclusory facts from which such an intent may reasonably be inferred is required
B: holding that fraudulent intent as required in the charge of embezzlement can be inferred from the facts proven direct evidence of such intent is not necessary
C: holding conclusory assertions of intent to cause insufficient without supporting facts
D: holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances
A.