Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
decision on the basis that “no evidence was presented” by means of which the director could have found that the employee was physically capable of cutting cores on June 18,1993. With this conclusion and the inherent requirement it weaves into an otherwise. unambiguous statute, we disagree. Had the Legislature deemed it necessary to insert into the statute a requirement that an employer present expert medical testimony that at the precise time an offer of light-duty work is tendered by the employer the employee was physically capable of performing that assignment, the Legislature could have done so. Our careful review of the statutory language and our prior decisions in interpretation thereof reveal no such rigid requirement. See Worcester Textile v. McIntosh, 593 A.2d 70, 73 (R.I.1991) . Although we agree that there was not an
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under the first amendment speech can be pursuant to a public employees official job duties even though it is not required by or included in the employees job description or in response to a request by the employer
B. holding an employee must be able to perform essential job functions at the time of termination
C. recognizing that medical evidence need not address employees physical capability to perform the particular job offered but rather the capacity of that employee for workrelated activity
D. holding that an administrator need not address each piece of evidence
E. holding that under pwdcra the inability to perform a particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation instead the impairment must significantly restrict an individuals ability to perform at least a wide range of jobs
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.