With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court found that the most complete relief possible includes both an award of back pay and promotion retroactive as of July 12, 2000, because plaintiffs would have been promoted and received lieutenants’ salaries but for the unlawful discrimination. We agree with the district court, despite the City’s arguments to the contrary. The City argues that plaintiffs are not entitled to promotion or back pay because there is no assurance, even had the sergeants passed the promotional process, that they would have been promoted to lieutenant because the police department often operates below budget and may not have hired all passing candidates. However, the City does not present any evidence to support this contention, and, thus failing to meet its burden, see Wooldridge, 875 F.2d at 547 (<HOLDING>), we dismiss its argument. The City also

A: holding that defendant bears burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that factors other than the condemned discrimination caused the decision of which claimant complains
B: holding that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the action should be transferred
C: holding that appellant bears burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence
D: holding that burden is upon employer to demonstrate by preponderance of evidence that claimant committed act in question
A.