Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Blackmon-Malloy, 575 F.3d at 713 (quoting President, 627 F.2d at 362). 14 . To the extent that Hyson argues that the application score or interview should have played a larger role in the hiring decision, the Court "defer[s] to the Government's decision of what nondiscriminatory qualities it ... seek[s] in filling the ... position.” Stewart v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 422, 429 (D.C.Cir.2003). 15 . This is especially true in the context of the prima facie burden-shifting scheme and the direct-versus-indirect evidence inquiry. See Wicks, 701 F.Supp.2d at 44 (" '[DJirect evidence does not include stray remarks in the workplace' " (quoting Ayala-Gerena v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Co., 95 F.3d 86, 96 (1st Cir.1996))); Prater v. FedEx Corp. Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 1725978, at *6-7 (D.D.C. June 18, 2009) . Once the focus shifts to the ultimate inquiry
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding because libels erisa claim is based on alleged circumstantial evidence  we analyze it under the mcdonnell douglas framework
B. holding that absent a casual link between supervisors isolated racial remarks and employers decision to promote stray remarks cannot support a verdict for race discrimination
C. holding because the plaintiffs erisa claim is based on alleged circumstantial evidence  the eighth circuit analyzed the claim under the mcdonnell douglas framework
D. holding that stray comments without more cannot establish a case of employment discrimination but if other indicia of discrimination are properly presented the remarks can no longer be deemed stray and the jury has a right to conclude that they bear a more ominous significance
E. holding that without a link to the challenged decision stray remarks did not constitute indirect evidence of discrimination sufficient to satisfy the final prong of the mcdonnell douglas framework
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.