Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
not have authority over Plaintiffs teaching or writing, they could not give him orders that he had to obey, and they did not have ultimate authority over whether or not he would be retained by University.” Id. at 629. Similarly, the Journalism Department faculty were responsible for reviewing Ku-bik’s progress and for making a recommendation, but did not have authority to reappoint Kubik. In fact, the Department’s first recommendation that Kubik not be reappointed was rejected by Dean Gha-nem. Kubik attempts to distinguish Sam Han by arguing that the Sixth Circuit was applying an Ohio statute, but the statutory language is substantially identical. See Ohio. Rev. Code § 4112.02. See also Masi v. DTE Coke Operations, LLC, No. 06-11592, 2007 WL 2827845, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2007) . Kubik cites Dutt v. Delaware State College
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii
B. holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under  1981
C. holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii
D. holding that individual defendants were not liable under the elcra because they did not have the authority to rehire the plaintiff
E. holding that the defendants were not liable for failing to perform the thorough professional investigation the plaintiff would have preferred
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.