With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". responsible for the adverse employment action suffered by the plaintiff. Daniel v. AutoZone, Inc., No. 13-CV-118 (GLS)(RFT), 2015 WL 2114158, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. May 6, 2015). Finally, in a reduction in force case, a plaintiff can establish an inference of discrimination by showing that the employer exercised discretion over which employees to let go, and that the employer chose to retain individuals outside of the protected class. See Burger v. N.Y. Inst. of Tech., 94 F.3d 830, 834 (2d Cir.1996) (finding a prima facie case where the plaintiff adduced evidence that (1) her job duties were not eliminated, and (2) the employer “believed that the lay-off decision involved a choice” among similar employees); Montana v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Rochester, 869 F.2d 100, 105 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Here, Tillman establishes—albeit barely—a

A: holding that a prima facie cases was established where the plaintiff offered evidence showing that 1 the majority of her responsibilities were not eliminated but transferred to an employee outside of the protected class and 2 the employee was not offered to remain in her position
B: holding that where the plaintiff discovered the injury on the very datedefendant informed her of her discharge the discovery rule offered no relief in relation to the timeliness of the filing of her discriminatory discharge claim
C: holding that plaintiff established a prima facie claim of retaliation because the defendants failure to transfer her out of her abusive working environment could be viewed as an adverse personnel action and there was a causal link between the filing of plaintiffs complaint and the defendants failure to transfer her
D: holding that a plaintiff in a discrimination case need not demonstrate that she was replaced by a person outside her protected class in order to carry her burden of establishing a prima facie case
A.