system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 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 Options: 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 such conduct or the causing of the result must have been the persons conscious objective C. 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 D. 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 E. holding that an employees inadvertence ordinary negli genee poor judgment or inattention does not constitute misconducttherefore we conclude further findings are required regarding claimants mens rea at the time of the incidents that gave rise to her discharge from employmentvil violation of company rulewe reject employers argument that disqualification is appropriate under section 8781085evii crs2009 that seetion permits disqualification as relevant here if there is evidence that claimant engaged in theviolation of a statute or of a company rule which resulted or could have resulted in serious damage to the employers property or interests or could have endangered the life of the worker or other persons such as mistreatment of patients in a hospital or nursing home serving liquor to minors selling prescription items without prescriptions from licensed doctors immoral conduct which has an effect on workers job status divulging of confidential information which resulted or could have resulted in damage to the employers interests failure to observe conspicuously posted safety rules intentional falsification of expense accounts inventories or other reeords or reports whether or not substantial harm or injury was incurred or removal or attempted removal of employers property from the premises of the employer without proper authorityhere there is no evidence in the record that claimants actions resulted or could have resulted in serious damage to the employers property or interests or could have endangered the life of the worker or other personsthe panels order is set aside and the case is remanded to the panel with instructions to remand the case to the hearing officer on remand the hearing officer shall determine based on the evidence in the record whether claimant had a good faith but mistaken belief the toilet paper remnants she took had been discarded or abandoned by employer if so the hearing officer shall award her benefits if the hearing officer determines that claimant not only acted volitionally but also had the requisite knowledge and intent to deprive her employer of its property at the time of the actions alleged in this case she is not entitled to benefitsjudge hawthorne and judge terry concursitting by assignment of the chief justice under provisions of colo const art vi 53

assistant: The best answer is D. 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