With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". request, Pulliam told Nicholes to stay silent if Yinger showéd up or asked any questions after his FMLA leave, and Pulliam refused to put anything in writing regarding Yinger’s termination, claiming instead that Yinger voluntarily ended his employment. Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that PPI retaliated against Yinger as soon as the opportunity presented itself—after Yinger’s FMLA leave expired in April 2013. Ill For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Yinger’s ADA and retaliatory discharge claims and REMAND the case for further proceedings. We also GRANT the parties’ motions to seal Volumes II and III of the Appellant’s Appendix. JetAway Aviation, LLC v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 754 F.3d 824, 826 (10th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). These records were subject to a protective

A: holding that a motion to intervene to assert the publics first amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper
B: holding that court may seal documents if publics right of access is outweighed by competing interests
C: holding that the need to maintain the secrecy of the governments investigation outweighed the publics right of access to sentencing documents
D: holding that court should balance competing interests
B.