With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to assert a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification for the plaintiffs non-selection. See generally id. The plaintiff responds that she was not required to demonstrate that she was treated differently from a similarly situated male applicant to establish her prima facie case and that, given the absence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification from the defendant, the court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on her non-selection claims. Pl.’s Opp’n at 8. This Circuit has squarely and repeatedly rejected the notion that a plaintiff must show that she was treated differently from a similarly situated individual outside her protected class to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Ginger v. Dist. of Columbia, 527 F.3d 1340, 1344 (D.C.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord

A: 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
B: holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim
C: holding that to prove discrimination  a plaintiff need not demonstrate that a similarly situated person outside his protected class was treated disparately quoting czekalski v peters 475 f3d 360 36566 dccir2007
D: holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated
C.