With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in digging a ditch, guiding a barge, or programming a computer. The plaintiffs in this case already are employees of the PCC, and most have worked there since before 1976, -all the while doing work that otherwise would “qualify” for the preference. The PCC has never suggested, let alone shown, that plaintiffs’ job performance has suffered in any way because of their citizenship status. Indeed, the PCC’s own policies make clear that the timing of citizenship is not a work-related qualification. As noted in Part I, from 1984 to 1989 four plaintiffs received the PCC’s equity adjustment package; yet there is no claim that their work was less acceptable than that of employees with earlier citizenship who also received the package during the same time period. See Berger, 843 F.2d at 1421 (<HOLDING>); cf. Griggs, 401 U.S. at 431-32, 91 S.Ct. 849

A: holding that an employer in an employment discrimination case may not justify its conduct based on evidence that did not motivate it at the time of the employment decision
B: holding that the intentional tort exception to employer immunity includes an objective standard to measure whether the employer engaged in conduct which was substantially certain to result in injury
C: holding that fivemonth period in which employer did not insist on employment qualification precluded claim that it was a minimum objective qualification and noting that employer could not rely on a qualification unless it satisfies the bedrock requirements of jobrelatedness
D: holding that a promissory estoppel claim failed where the plaintiff provided no evidence that the employer defendant did not follow the employment manuals requirements
C.