With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". there is ample evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that, in the words of the Reeves Court, Sears’s “asserted justification is false.” Id. Indeed, the fact that Sears has offered different justifications at different times for its failure to hire Santana is, in and of itself, probative of pretext. See, e.g., Dominguez-Cruz v. Suttle Caribe, Inc., 202 F.3d 424, 432 (1st Cir.2000) (“[Wlhen a company, at different times, gives different and arguably inconsistent explanations, a jury may infer that the articulated reasons are pretextual.”); Thurman v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 90 F.3d 1160, 1167 (6th Cir.1996) (“An employer’s changing rationale for making an adverse employment decision can be evidence of pretext.”); EEOC v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 44 F.3d 116, 120 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a factfinder could infer from the

A: holding that based upon discrepancies in defendants articulated basis for discrimination reasonable juror could infer that these were pretextual and developed over time to counter evidence suggesting discrimination
B: holding that a reasonable juror could infer that the shifting and inconsistent explanations given by the employer at trial were pretextual developed over time to counter the evidence suggesting discrimination
C: holding that a reasonable juror could not infer discrimination based on a supervisors comments that the company needed to get rid of its old fart pilots
D: holding that a court must allow the defendant to ask in voir dire whether a potential juror would automatically impose the death penalty and suggesting that such a juror should be disqualified for cause
B.