Brett, the manager at Warson’s Diner, plans to promote Keisha, one of the waitresses, to the position of an assistant manager. However, the owner, being racially biased, prevents him from doing so. Later, when Brett wants to promote one of the delivery boys to waiter, the owner again vetoes his recommendation on the grounds that his customers would feel uncomfortable having a black man deliver their food. Brett, extremely frustrated, offers Keisha and the delivery boy their promotions as he finds them deserving. Subsequently, Brett gets fired. Which of the following holds true in this scenario?

a. Brett has a cause of action against Warson’s Diner for retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
b. Brett has a cause of action against Warson’s Diner based on the bona fide occupational qualification defense.
c. Brett is liable for racial discrimination because as a manager he failed to change the company’s policy regarding promotion of African-Americans.
d. Brett is liable because he failed to follow the instructions provided by his employer.

From the question, we are informed about Brett, the manager at Warson’s Diner, who plans to promote Keisha, one of the waitresses, to the position of an assistant manager. We are also told that the owner, being racially biased, prevents him from doing so and in the end , Brett gets fired

What holds true in this scenario described above is that Brett has a cause of action against Warson's Diner for retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is a law, of Act of 1964 that oversee any form of discrimination against employee of an organization and shield them from been discriminated because of race they belong to, their sex , their National origin an so on . The law doesn't only forbid discrimination that is intentional, but all actions that speak discrimination wether intentional or not.