With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in his action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings as to retaliatory intent, Jauregui v. City of Glendale, 852 F.2d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir.1988), and for abuse of discretion its evi-dentiary rulings, Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 279 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm. The district court did not clearly err by finding that Zahn failed to prove that the instruction that he not return to work was motivated by any protected status under Title VII, the ADA, the RA or the WLAD. See Lam v. Univ. of Haw., 40 F.3d 1551, 1565-66 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237

A: holding that when court applies the clearly erroneous standard court may not reverse boards finding of fact if after court reviews the record in its entirety the finding is supported by a plausible basis
B: holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous
C: holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages
D: holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record
D.