With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a prima facie case, Oracle cites several legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for his discharge, which Sagar has not adequately demonstrated to be pretextual or untrue. Oracle has shown that Sagar was not highly utilized, since the pipeline of work for Project Man agers was modest; that during his most recent projects both customers and coworkers complained that Sagar was difficult to work with; and that the company was experiencing a severe decline in business which necessitated a reduction in force. Further undermining to Sagar’s attempt to show pretext is the simple fact that, although he was 60 years of age at the time of his termination, Susan Curry, who was 62, was retained and continues to work for Oracle. See Richter v. HookSupeRx, Inc., 142 F.3d 1024, 1032 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). It is also noteworthy that Sagar was

A: holding that retaining employees comparable in age to the plaintiff weakened an inference of discrimination in employment termination case
B: holding in age discrimination case that plaintiffs dismissal did not give rise to an inference of discrimination when job was subsequently offered to an older individual
C: holding employees under age discrimination in employment acts adea parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship
D: holding that the age discrimination in employment act was not preempted by the nlra
A.