Task: Text Completion
Input (English): any other female subordinate at defendant company. Further, although Parker testified that there was no justification for authorizing a token increase in plaintiff’s pay, he approved an increase for employee Donald Gerding. Mr. Gerding, a white male whose position and experience was comparable to that of the plaintiff, received authorization from Parker for a $1,700.00 per year increase despite Edward Lewis’s statements that Gerding’s major weaknesses included “poor communication, documentation; provides no leadership; poor attitude.” Parker’s conduct, comments, and his demeanor while testifying indicate that his stated reasons for not approving a modest pay increase to the plaintiff in Spring, 1985 were false and therefore pretextual. See Sims v. Cleland, 813 F.2d 790 (6th Cir. 1987) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that his action was a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employee may establish that the legitimate reason for an employment decision offered by an employer is pretextual by showing by a preponderance of the evidence either that the discrim inatory reason was the true reason motivating the employers conduct or that the profferred legitimate reason was false (B) holding that temporal proximity is insufficient in and of itself to establish that the employers nondiscriminatory reason for discharging an employee was in fact pretextual (C) holding that even an incorrect belief that an employees performance is inadequate can be a legitimate reason for an adverse employment action (D) recognizing that an employers decision to eliminate a position is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating a position or employee (E) holding that a reason cannot be proved to be a pretext for discrimination  unless it is shown both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason
Output (English): (A)