Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
direct evidence of discrimination or relied solely on circumstantial evidence. See Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 270-78, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (describing the direct evidence model); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (describing the circumstantial evidence model). Like the parties, we apply the distinction drawn by these cases. As the Supreme Court has recently reemphasized, however, the McDonnell Douglas framework is a “flexible evidentiary, standard” whose requirements “vary depending on the context”; it is a method for proving cases rather than the definition of a cause of action. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 997, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) . A. Direct Evidence It is generally to an
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal government employee successfully established prima facie case of retaliation under mcdonnell douglas but failed to prove employers proffered reason was pretextual
B. holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case
C. holding that a plaintiff who could not demonstrate every element of the mcdonnell douglas test could nonetheless demonstrate a prima facie case
D. holding that a title vii plaintiff need not plead the elements of a mcdonnell douglas prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss
E. holding that denial of the opportunity to work overtime is an adverse employment action sufficient to make out a prima facie case under title vii
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.