Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
36. Mr. Sapp’s overtime logs include notations with various iterations of this statement in response to his overtime requests throughout 2011 and 2012. See id, at 20-86. Furthermore, on December 16, 2011, the BOP sent Mr. Sapp a memorandum clarifying that, as previously advised, he was not to go past certain areas into the prison facility, that he was not to have any inmate contact, and that this action was taken based on the investigation. See D.E. 116-6. The record demonstrates that the BOP consistently cited the ongoing investigation and corresponding restrictions as the reason for denying his overtime requests. That Ms. Burke provided Mr. Sapp with a different or alternate reason does not itself show pretext. Cf. Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 216 (4th Cir. 2007) ; Fane v. Locke Reynolds, LLP, 480 F.3d 534,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that employers report to state employment agency providing a reason for termination that was different than employers proffered reason did not create a genuine and material issue of fact as to pretext particularly when evidence showed the inaccurate reporting benefitted employee
B. holding that a jury could find employers proffered reason for termination pretext when plaintiff presented evidence that she had not violated company policy or was authorized to deviate from stated policy and employer never discussed alleged violations with her
C. holding that questions about employees impending retirement failed to rebut the employers nondiscriminatory reason for termination particularly considering employee admitted that he did not know whether questions were for a legitimate purpose in concluding overall that the plaintiff had not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext
D. holding that plaintiff can show pretext by demonstrating that an employers proffered reason for an adverse employment action has no basis in fact
E. holding that a reason cannot be proved to be a pretext for discrimination  unless it is shown both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.