With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a plaintiff to put forward “such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact-finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted; emphasis in the original). Fuentes further explains that “to avoid summary judgment, the plaintiffs evidence rebutting the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons must allow a fact-finder reasonably to infer that each of the employer’s proffered non-discriminatory reasons ... was either a post hoc fabrication or otherwise did not actually motivate the employment action.” Id. at 764 (emphasis in the original); see also Logue v. Int’l Rehab. Assocs., Inc., 837 F.2d 150, 155 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). In a footnote, Fuentes allowed for the

A: holding that inconsistency in employers reasons for the termination is an indication of pretext
B: holding that there were genuine issues of material fact and reversing the district courts grant of summary judgment because in part the everchanging nature of the proffered reasons given for plaintiffs termination could be viewed as evidence tending to show pretext  
C: holding that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the employers proffered evidence of legitimate business reasons for the plaintiffs termination
D: holding that district court erred in failing to consider evidence of secondary considerations
C.