Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with the District Court that Seko failed to present a prima facie case under the ADA. See Hennenfent v. Mid Dakota Clinic P.C., 164 F.3d 419, 421-22 (8th Cir.1998) (stating that one element of prima facie ADA case is that employee is qualified to perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation). Further, assuming, as did the District Court, that she established a causal connection between the decision to place her on medical leave and her prior lawsuits, she failed to present evidence showing that Boeing’s proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for placing her on such leave—her inability to return to a job requiring the use of power tools, given her medical condition—was pretextual. See Scroggins v. Univ. of Minn., 221 F.3d 1042, 1045 (8th Cir.2000) . We decline to address the new arguments Seko
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even if employee established prima facie case of retaliation he produced no evidence challenging employers reason for firing him
B. holding that federal government employee successfully established prima facie case of retaliation under mcdonnell douglas but failed to prove employers proffered reason was pretextual
C. holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct
D. holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action
E. holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.