With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Bercoon, Weiner, Glick & Brook v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 818 F.Supp. 1152, 1161 (N.D.Ill.1993). In each of these cases, however, including Peck, the plaintiff incurred some external, additional cost in reliance on the defendant’s representations, which cost could be recovered on a theory of promissory estoppel. Here, plaintiff fails to allege such detrimental reliance. Plaintiff alleges that he passed up another job offer in reliance on defendant’s alleged oral promises. Plaintiffs alleged detrimental reliance is inadequate, however, because plaintiff did not make defendant aware of the offer from McNulty or his decision to turn it down in favor of his position with defendant. See Moore v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 1991 WL 149881, at *7 (D.N.J.1991) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff, here, has not established that he

A: holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired
B: holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position
C: holding plaintiff failed to demonstrate disparate treatment because she failed to show she was similarly situated to coworker to whom she compared herself
D: holding that plaintiffs claim failed for lack of evidence of a bargainedfor exchange and reliance where plaintiff never informed defendant that she was considering another job offer or that she turned down that offer
D.