With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on the motivations of a doctor who disparaged the plaintiff in a presentation to the hospital’s Credentials Committee). 50 . 363 F.3d 77, 79 (1st Cir.2004). 51 . See Davila v. Corporacion de P.R. para la Difusion Publica, 498 F.3d 9, 17 n. 3 (1st Cir.2007) (approving Cariglia in the context of an ADEA case). 52 . See Tuli, 566 F.Supp.2d at 51 n. 34 (examining the plaintiff’s state and federal retaliation claims under the Cariglia standard for identical reasons). Viewing the claims concurrently through the lens of First Circuit precedent does not disadvantage Plaintiff, despite her failure to distinguish state and federal law, because Massachusetts case law arguably creates an even higher bar for plaintiffs to meet. See Mole v. Univ. of Mass., 442 Mass. 582, 814 N.E.2d 329, 343 (2004) (<HOLDING>). 53 . Cerqueira v. American Airlines, Inc.,

A: holding that the court must assume on summary judgment that the nondecisionmakerharasser relayed the plaintiffs complaints about sexual harassment to the decisionmaker even though both the harasser and the decisionmaker denied this fact the harasser was present at the meeting in which it was decided that plaintiff would be terminated he had an incentive to pass on this information and his credibility was in question as to other matters
B: holding that liability attaches if the decisionmaker merely rubber stamps the recommendation of the retaliating supervisor or if the retaliating supervisor dupes the decisionmaker into taking action or otherwise controls the decisionmaker
C: holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation without evidence that the decisionmaker knew about plaintiffs protected activity when he made the decision that resulted in the adverse action
D: holding plaintiff failed to raise inference of discrimination where only evidence plaintiff adduced was fact that decisionmaker was different race
B.