Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1150, 1155 (2d Cir.1978) (an employee “only needs to demonstrate that [she] possesses the basic skills necessary for performance of the job.”). Tomassi suffered an adverse employment action because her employment was terminated. See Cordoba v. Beau Deitl & Assoc., No. 02 Civ. 4951, 2003 WL 22902266, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.8, 2003). Finally, the fact that her responsibilities were taken over by a newly-hired 25-year-old is enough to warrant the inference — at the prima facie stage — that Tomassi was the victim of age discrimination. See id. (terminating an employee in the protected age group while retaining a 27 year old and 34 year old is enough to warrant the inference that the plaintiff was the victim of age discrimination); see also Tarshis v. Riese Org., 211 F.3d 30, 38 (2d Cir.2000) . However, Insignia and MetLife can rebut
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add count when no prejudice resulted from two and onehalf year delay and facts underlying new and old counts were similar
B. holding that it is wellsettled that rule 59 is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues presenting the case under new theories  or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple
C. holding that when a 56year old employee was replaced by a 40year old employee this qualified as someone substantially younger for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case
D. holding inference is warranted when a 67 year old is replaced by a 59 year old
E. holding that a change between old and new rules was fundamental to a degree that impacts our jurisdiction over the plaintiffs challenges to the old rules
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.