With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". because he has no evidence of similarly situated employees who did not engage in protected activity. Lupescu relies on the same comparators first asserted in his racial discrimination claim. This reliance is doubly flawed. First, the evidentiary gaps in Lu-pescu’s race discrimination “similarly situated” claim dooms most of this claim as well: there is no evidence that Laurent, Chandler, or Chase was comparable to Lu-pescu, and likewise none that Chase or Hall was treated more favorably. Second, and equally fundamentally, Lupescu points to no evidence that any purported comparator engaged in protected activity. Lupes-cu must produce evidence creating a triable issue of fact that the comparators did not engage in such conduct, see Bellino v. Peters, 530 F.3d 543, 551 (7th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); without that evidence, the court is left to

A: holding that caucasian employees who engaged in the same act as the plaintiff but it did not result in injury to others were not similarly situated
B: holding that a similarly situated employee is one who is comparable to plaintiff in all material respects
C: holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated
D: holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim
D.