With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Company to discharge Walker. The General Coúnsel failed to introduce proof that the Company had ever used any penalty less severe than discharge for time card falsification. Because the General Counsel failed to offer such proof, we hold that a reasonable person might have been unable to conclude whether proper or improper motives moved the Company to discharge, or that a reasonable person might have concluded that proper motives moved the Company to discharge Walker. A reasonable person could not have concluded that improper motives moved the Company to discharge Walker. Substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that the Company discriminatorily discharged Walker. Compare NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26, 34-35, 87 S.Ct. 1792, 1798, 18 L.Ed. 1027 (1967) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we do not enforce that portion

A: holding that substantial evidence supported the boards finding of discriminatory conduct as the company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
B: holding district court order of restitution failed for lack of proof when government failed to meet burden
C: holding that the insured failed to meet its burden where the insurer had reserved its rights to assert coverage defenses
D: holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process
A.