With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". management’s statements to staff are riddled with inconsistencies concerning defendant’s priorities regarding productivity, that plaintiffs colleague and future supervisor was able to emphasize his productivity in a way that plaintiff was not able to treat her own, that after plaintiffs termination defendant dropped some of the standards purportedly applied to sales during plaintiffs tenure. As described in plaintiffs version of the facts, defendant’s systematic implementation of various “rules” concerning productivity that appear to have had an impact only on plaintiff, their selective enforcement of those rules, and their subsequent abandonment of certain criteria, could easily lead a finder of fact to determine that these standards were pretextual. See, e.g., Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1225 (<HOLDING>); E.E.O.C. v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 44 F.3d 116,

A: holding systematic resurrection after employees termination of tasks employer had originally eliminated to justify action against employee raised inference of discrimination
B: holding that employee was not precluded from bringing separate employment discrimination action against employer where employee was not a party to consent decree entered into between eeoc and employer employee had rejected consent decree and had received no relief under decree
C: holding that notwithstanding fact that employer brought suit in its own name pursuant to ocga  349111 c only for the liquidated amount that had been paid to the employee in workers compensation benefits after employee failed to file his own tort action within one year of injury employee was not precluded from bringing his own separate action to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium but noting that employee received notice of employers suit only after filing his own action suggesting that court in which employers action was pending had wrongly denied the employees motion to intervene to which motion employer had objected noting that if employee had not moved to intervene in other action employees separate action would have been barred by laches and holding that thirdparty tortfeasor could move for mandatory joinder of the employer in the employees action
D: holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employees complaint alleged inter alia employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment employer tested employees blood to monitor lead levels employer willfully and intentionally withheld employees test results which showed employee had developed leadrelated diseases and employer subsequently altered those results to induce employee to continue working for employer employee further alleged employers concealment of employees condition prevented employee from reducing his exposure to lead and obstructed him from receiving appropriate medical treatment and that delay in treatment resulted in aggravation of employees injury
A.