Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
were discriminatory do not pass muster under Harris. The record reflects that McCaw made several accommodations, accompanied by certain quid-pro-quo requests, to Kwiatek once it learned that Kwiatek’s HIV condition could require continual absences. Although Kwiatek argues that he felt he was generally treated differently than other employees with chronic and debilitating medical conditions, he presented no objective evidence of an abusive or hostile work environment. Moreover, there was no evidence that McCaw’s requests unreasonably interfered with his job performance, nor that the terms or conditions of Kwiatek’s employment materially changed as a result of its actions. As such, his claim must fail. See, e.g., Chisholm v. Foothill Capital Corp., 3 F.Supp.2d 925, 938-39 (N.D.Ill.1998) ; Speer v. Rand McNally & Co., 123 F.3d 658,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that termination is an adverse employment action
B. holding that mere reprimand even if it does not result in actual dismissal can constitute adverse employment action
C. holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se
D. holding a mere warning that termination is possible does not per se constitute adverse employment action
E. holding that where an employee was transferred to a new job site over 120 miles away that transfer while not per se an adverse employment action was an appropriate factor for the jury to consider in determining whether an adverse employment action occurred
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.