Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and was not addressed by the Supreme Court in Auer, that being whether an employer’s policy of requiring deductions from a salaried employee’s vacation, personal leave or other paid benefits accounts when he or she works less than the required forty hours per week violates the “salary basis” test for exempt executive employees. Again there is a split in the circuits on this issue. The Ninth and Tenth Circuits, as well as a number of district courts, have held that the required use of accrued benefits to cover partial day absences from work does not violate the salary basis test. Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1994); Aaron v. City of Wichita, 54 F.3d 652, 658 (10th Cir.); Bennett v. City of Albuquerque, No. 94-2094, 1995 WL 230315 (10th Cir. Apr.18, 1995), , cert. denied, 516 U.S. 965, 116 S.Ct. 419,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that absent a specific policy to reduce the amount of pay as opposed to reductions in accrued benefits the salary basis concept is not violated
B. holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa
C. holding that the payments accrued
D. holding that unemployment compensation benefits received by plaintiff are collateral source and that defendant could not reduce personal injury damages because of such benefits
E. holding despite not finding undue hardship that it would be equitable to reduce the amount of nondischargeable liability by the amount of the accrued interest
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.