Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Ex. 16. Specifically, the letter states, “Enclosed, please find copies of documents from [the plaintiff] that relate to her EEO investigation” and then lists the enclosed documents. Id. The letter does not mention discrimination or harassment. Therefore, the June 2007 letter is not a protected activity. See Paquin, 119 F.3d at 31; see also Fox v. Eagle Distrib. Co., Inc., 510 F.3d 587, 591 (6th Cir.2007) (requiring specific references to alleged acts of discrimination). Moving to whether the agency’s action following the November 2006 letter was materially adverse, the defendant claims that proposed removals do not qualify as materially adverse actions. Def.’s Reply at 21. Proposed removals, however, are exactly the kind of acts which the statute covers. See Powell, 390 F.Supp.2d at 9 ; Willingham v. Gonzales, 391 F.Supp.2d 52, 59
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that each incident of discrimination and each retaliatory adverse employment decision constitutes a separate actionable unlawful employment practice  for which an administrative charge must be filed
B. holding that statutory damages were appropriate for each discrete violation of that states deceptive trade practices act
C. holding in the context of a title yii claim that discrete acts such as termination  or refusals to hire are separate retaliatory adverse employment decisions that each constitutes a separate actionable unlawful employment practice 
D. holding that the protection of the double jeopardy clause does not preclude a defendant from being charged under a statute  defining as the criminal offense a discrete act after a prior conviction or acquittal of a distinguishable discrete act that is a separate violation of the statute
E. holding that a proposed termination is the very type of discrete act   identified  as separate actionable unlawful employment practices
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.