With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Wells Fargo Bank, 633 F.3d 529 (7th Cir.2011), the Seventh Circuit validated § 202.2(e)’s definition of “applicant.” The plaintiff in Davis argued that she became an ECOA “applicant” when the defendants offered her a loan modification, allegedly on racially discriminatory terms. Id. at 538. The Seventh Circuit agreed, holding that the plaintiff, “as the recipient of the defendants’ offer to modify her loan, ‘received an extension of credit’ and thus became an ‘applicant’ under 12 C.F.R. § 202.2(e).” Ibid. The court could not have concluded that the plaintiff was in fact an “applicant” under the ECOA without accepting § 202.2(e) as an authoritative interpretation of that statutory term. As for Moran Foods, Davis indicated that its discussion of the term “applicant” was dicta. See ibid, (<HOLDING>). In any event, FirstMerit does not argue that

A: holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants reasons for not hiring the plaintiff were pretext because the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence other than her own subjective testimony that she was more qualified for the job than the selectee
B: holding that analyzing summary judgment decisions under the standards set forth in mai 3124 is appropriate because a plaintiff has no higher standard to survive summary judgment than is required to submit the claim to a jury
C: holding without discussing the plaintiffs burden of persuasion that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment
D: holding that moran foods found no need to resolve the threshold issue of whether a plaintiff was an applicant under the ecoa because plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence of discrimination under the ecoa to survive summary judgment
D.