With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 363 F.3d at 82 (finding that supervisor reported to decisionmakers that the plaintiff had failed to complete an important assignment but supervisor excluded the reasons given by the plaintiff that would explain his behavior). 67 . Cerqueira, 520 F.3d at 19. 68 . See Pl.’s Resp. Defs.’ Statement of Facts ¶ 14. Although Plaintiff argues that she was treated differently than other communications employees, she does not dispute the fact that Mr. Tovin was in the process of centralizing the communications departments in 2006. See id. 69 . See Nichols Dep. 215:20-216:4; Wyatt Dep. 13:10-22; Nuzzo Dep. 98:18-99:12; Schoeffler Dep. 216:18-20:22; Tovin Dep. 68:1-6, 70:22-71:7; Nichols Aff. Ex. 19, Wyatt Note to File, Oct. 5, 2006. 70 . Tovin Dep. 71:3-7. 71 . Cf. Tuli, 566 F.Supp.2d at 51 n. 35 (<HOLDING>); Cariglia, 363 F.3d at 79 (holding that the

A: holding that an independent engineering company that played a significant role in developing allegedly false statements made by a mineral exploration company could be held liable as a primary violator
B: holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial
C: holding if a plaintiff claiming discrimination under the ada demonstrates that his or her disability played a motivating role in the employment decision the plaintiff is entitled to relief
D: holding that the plaintiff satisfied cariglia standard where witnesses testified that the false information played a significant role in the decisionmaking bodys ultimate determination
D.