With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a non-discriminatory reason for its conduct. “Where, as here, the employer proffers a nondiscriminatory reason for its action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the reason was a coverup for a discriminatory decision.” Straughn, 250 F.3d at 34 (internal quotations omitted). In assessing pretext, the court must look at the total package of proof offered by the plaintiff. See Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 824 (1st Cir.1991). Here, Benoit has not provided sufficient evidence for a jury to disbelieve TMC’s stated reasons for termination, let alone that those reasons masked racial discrimination. Benoit has not shown that any other similarly situated employee was treated differently. Cf. Perkins v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., 78 F.3d 747, 751 (1st Cir.1996)(<HOLDING>). Nor has he established that TMC failed to

A: holding that discrimination can be established through other evidence such as disparate treatment of fellow employees who engaged in similar conduct
B: holding that the individuals with whom a plaintiff seeks to be compared must have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances as would distinguish their conduct or the employers treatment of them for it
C: holding that such conduct or the causing of the result must have been the persons conscious objective
D: recognizing that an officer must have a reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has been is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity to frisk an individual for weapons and must have probable cause to conduct a further seizure
B.