With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Goller has not produced direct evidence of race discrimination. Goller, 2007 WL 1165799, at *3. “Direct evidence of discrimination is ‘that evidence which, if believed, requires the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating' factor in the employer’s actions.’ ” Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564, 570 (6th Cir.2003) (en banc) (quoting Jacklyn v. Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods. Sales Corp., 176 F.3d 921, 926 (6th Cir.1999)). Smith’s use of derogatory racial slurs cannot constitute direct evidence of discrimination because a significant inference would be required for a factfinder to conclude that Smith’s racial animosity motivated Shewalter’s decision to terminate Goller. Cf. Talley v. Bravo Pitino Rest., Ltd., 61 F.3d 1241, 1249 (6th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Because Goller presents only circumstantial

A: holding that use of racial slurs by managers responsible for the decision regarding a plaintiffs termination constitutes direct evidence
B: holding that the numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the persons primarily responsible for plaintiffs termination when coupled with the timing of plaintiffs termination and the conflicting reasons given by defendants agents for the termination might well persuade a jury that defendant fired the plaintiff in retaliation for  the letter sent by her attorney to defendants general counsel
C: holding that the employers routine use of racial slurs constitutes direct evidence that racial animus was a motivating factor in the contested disciplinary decisions
D: holding that the use of racial slurs and menacing remarks constitute severe conduct
A.