With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". violation of Title VII “[gjiven the magistrate judge’s opportunity to view the demeanor of the witnesses at trial and the inconsistencies in [the employer’s] version of the events surrounding [the plaintiffs] departure from [the company].”); Duchon v. Cajon Co., 791 F.2d 43, 46 (6th Cir.1986) (reversing district court’s grant of summary judgment to employer because plaintiffs allegations made in her affidavit that “ ‘she had never been warned or disciplined about her performance’ ... directly contradicted] [her supervisor’s] stated reason that [she] was discharged in part for poor performance[ ] ... [and] raise[d] a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the reason for her discharge so as to preclude summary judgment.”); Ferguson v. Small, 225 F.Supp.2d 31, 40-41 (D.D.C.2002) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, to the extent that director

A: holding that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the employers proffered evidence of legitimate business reasons for the plaintiffs termination
B: holding that employees threats of violence against a coworker were legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for termination
C: holding that the conflicting explanations given by defendants agents for the plaintiffs termination were also sufficient to raise a reasonable inference that defendants proffered reasons for the termination were pretextual the inconsistent testimony  regarding the motivating reasons for plaintiffs termination cast doubts on the asserted nondiscriminatory legitimate reasons and may alone  be sufficient to preclude summary judgment on plaintiffs claim
D: holding that plaintiff need only point to sufficient evidence to support an inference that the employer did not act for its proffered nondiscriminatory reasons
C.