With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". under the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1140. To establish a claim for a violation of § 510, Fitzgerald must show Action “had a specific intent to interfere with [his insurance] benefits, but that may be shown by circumstantial evidence.” Register v. Honeywell Fed. Mfg. & Techs., LLC, 397 F.3d 1130, 1136-37 (8th Cir.2005) (citing Regel v. K-Mart Corp., 190 F.3d 876, 881 (8th Cir.1999)). In the absence of direct evidence of an employer’s deliberate interference with future benefits, we analyze § 510 interference claims using the McDonnell Douglas three-part burden-shifting analysis common to Title VII and ADEA cases. See Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); Libel v. Adventure Lands of America, Inc., 482 F.3d 1028, 1035 n. 7 (8th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Initially, Fitzgerald must make a prima facie

A: holding because the plaintiffs erisa claim is based on alleged circumstantial evidence  the eighth circuit analyzed the claim under the mcdonnell douglas framework
B: holding that without a link to the challenged decision stray remarks did not constitute indirect evidence of discrimination sufficient to satisfy the final prong of the mcdonnell douglas framework
C: recognizing that the mcdonnell douglas framework is less useful in the context of an alleged discriminatory disciplinary decision than in the context of an alleged discriminatory hiring decision
D: holding because libels erisa claim is based on alleged circumstantial evidence  we analyze it under the mcdonnell douglas framework
D.