With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". fully in section III.A.4 within. As the Seventh Circuit has pointed out, the “background circumstance” threshold is lower than that necessary for the discrimination claim as a whole. Mills, 171 F.3d at 457. A review of Seventh Circuit precedent and decisions from other courts in this district reveals that more than a headcount of supervisors may be necessary to pass this threshold. Id. at 457 (noting evidence of “ ‘disproportionate hiring patterns’ favoring women” in addition to predominance of female supervisors); see also Ballance v. City of Springfield, 424 F.3d 614, 617-18 (7th Cir.2005) (affirming that background circumstances exited when independent investigation revealed that race and gender were taken into consideration in making employment decisions); Hague, 436 F.3d at 822 (<HOLDING>); Nagle v. Village of Calumet Park, 554 F.3d

A: holding when an employee was temporarily replaced by a person who was 10 years younger and permanently replaced by a person four years younger this was sufficient for the prima facie case
B: holding that a white office was not similarly situated to a black officer who was charged with more offenses than the white officer
C: holding that sufficient background circumstances existed when five fired white plaintiffs were essentially replaced by black employees
D: holding that an employers decision to terminate and individuals employment based on race is a violation of title vii regardless of whether that person is white or black
C.