With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". entirely without a personal discriminatory motivation, Hill was given an opportunity to tell her side of the story and dispute the information she now challenges. There is no evidence that she did so at the time. Nor, for that matter, is there any indication that she did so during her deposition. Hi ll of the supposed “lie” and gave Hill an opportunity to tell her side of the story or otherwise refute it. It was, in my view, incumbent upon her at that point to do so if she intended to complain later. See English, 248 F.3d at 1011 (“A plaintiff cannot claim that a firing authority relied uncritically upon a subordinate’s prejudiced recommendation where the plaintiff had an opportunity to respond to and rebut the evidence supporting the recommendation.”); Willis, 118 F.3d at 547-48 (<HOLDING>). In addition, Hill’s evidence fails to support

A: holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false
B: holding that the cats paw line of cases was not applicable because the formal decisionmaker investigated the subordinates motives by meeting with the plaintiff before acting on the subordinates adverse recommendation
C: 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
D: holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct
B.