With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Award in 1998-1999 Nurriddin next claims that he suffered discrimination and retaliation when he was denied an award for the 1998-1999 performance evaluation period. NASA does not dispute that it did not grant Nurriddin a performance award, but denies that discrimination or retaliation played a role in its decision. A. Discrimination The record does not contain a 1998-1999 performance evaluation of Nurriddin so it is unclear whether he was eligible for an award. Drawing every inference in his favor, because he was eligible for an award in prior years, the Court will assume that he was eligible for some sort of performance award in 1998-1999. Therefore, because NASA did not grant him any performance award at all, there is an adverse action here. See, e.g., Douglas, 559 F.3d at 552-53 (<HOLDING>). Nurriddin has not, however, offered any

A: holding that the denial of even a purely discretionary bonus can be actionable
B: holding that even constitutional claims can be timebarred
C: holding that the concerns cited by the district courts supra justify discretionary denial of pendent jurisdiction but not deciding whether such denial is mandated by congress
D: holding that even though the summary plan description did not include discretionary language the grant of discretionary authority in the plan controlled
A.