With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 552 U.S. 1166, 128 S.Ct. 1124, 169 L.Ed.2d 950 (2008) (“[similar to the plaintiff in Bienkowski, however, [the plaintiff] possessed the same job qualifications when [the employer] terminated him as when [his supervisor] assigned him to the credit review position. Accordingly, [the plaintiff] need not show that his performance met [the employer’s] expectations to establish a prima facie case.”). In this case, Mr. Ohlmeyer possessed the same job qualifications when Entergy terminated him as when he became an Accountant III. Although Entergy submitted evidence that Mr. Ohlmeyer’s supervisors were not pleased with his performance, this evidence does not prove a lack of qualifications at the prima facie stage. See by analogy Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., Inc., 238 F.3d 674, 681 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 987 F.2d 324, 327

A: holding on summary judgment that an employer may not utilize wholly subjective standards by which to judge its employees qualifications and then plead lack of qualification when its promotion process is challenged as discriminatory
B: recognizing exception to application requirement when employer does not notify employees of available promotion and does not provide formal mechanism for expressing interest in promotion
C: holding ones satisfactory performance of duties leading to a promotion does establish a plaintiffs qualification for a job
D: holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment
A.