Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
see also id. at 580 (Kavanaugh, J.,- concurring) (“[Bjeing called the n-word by a supervisor — as Ayissi-Etoh alleges happened to him — suffices by itself to; establish a racially hostile work environment.”). But the severity of a supervisor’s use of “probably the most offensive word in English,” id. (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted), is far greater than a somewhat bizarre. and ambiguous, albeit offensive, question allegedly posed by a supervisor in response to a complaint about an unambiguously non-racial workplace display. Rather, Ms. Stiger’s-'offen-sive question is more akin to the sort of derogatory remarks that courts in this Circuit have deemed non-actionable in the past. See, e.g., Freedman v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 255 F.3d 840, 848 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ; Neuren v. Adduci, Mastriani, Meeks & Schill,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a supervisor was not similarly situated to another supervisor with the same title where the former could not perform the latters duties
B. holding that there was nohostile work environment where a supervisor after negotiating with another supervisor for a printer told a jewish employee soon im going to be the only one at this terminal wearing a yarmulka
C. holding that a supervisor who approached an employees desk with a workissued gun and said im going to screw you up contributed to a hostile work environment
D. holding plaintiffs supervisor subject to suit
E. holding that comments not directed at plaintiff including a supervisor who called another worker the nword were relevant to the evaluation of hostile work environment claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.