With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 149 (4th Cir.2003). See Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd., DKC 06-2892, 2010 WL 5055790, at *6-7, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127715, at *17-18 (D.Md. Dec. 3, 2010). The plaintiff may establish that she was meeting her employer’s expectations by providing: (1) her employer’s concessions that she was performing satisfactorily at the time of the adverse action; (2) evidence of prior positive performance reviews from the employer; or (3) qualified expert opinion testimony as to the employer’s legitimate performance expectations and an analysis and evaluation of the plaintiffs performance in light of those expectations. See King, 328 F.3d at 149-50; Calvert Group, Ltd., 2010 WL 5055790, at *6-7, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127715, at *17-18. But see Luther v. Gutierrez, 618 F.Supp.2d 483, 492 (E.D.Va.2009) (<HOLDING>). In this case, while Plaintiff was technically

A: holding that a review of an employees 1989 performance was irrelevant to a determination of whether his performance was satisfactory at the time of his termination in august of 1990
B: holding that governmentcaused delay in contractor performance violated implied duty not to hinder performance of other party
C: holding that prior positive performance evaluations are not dispositive as to whether the employer was satisfied with the employees performance by the time of the termination
D: holding that performance may be valid acceptance
C.