Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
stating that it was “of the opinion that the suit was frivolous and without merit.” While section 1988 provides that “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorneys’ fee ...,” the standard for awarding attorneys’ fees differs if a defendant rather than a plaintiff prevails. In Christianburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 417, 98 S.Ct. 694, 698, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978), the Supreme Court noted that under the attorneys’ fees provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (1976), attorneys’ fees should be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff in all but special circumstances. The Court held, however, that a prevailing defendant should be awarded attorneys’ fees 998 (5th Cir.1979) . Since we conclude that the record before us
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is no individual liability under title vii
B. holding title vii claim against western electric not frivolous as a matter of law
C. holding delayed title vii suit not frivolous where there was no evidence that the plaintiff knew he had been given a right to sue letter
D. holding as subject to equitable tolling title vii statute authorizing suit brought within 90 days of receipt of right to sue notice
E. holding defendant employer knew plaintiff had engaged in activity protected under title vii where plaintiff was identified as a potential witness by a coworker plaintiff in a deposition given in a prior title yii employment discrimination action brought by the coworker against the employer
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.