Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
forth a prima facie case of gender discrimination. IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1 . Seibert’s PDA claim fares no better. Seibert alleged that she requested, but was denied, accommodation in the form of a reclining chair. Because this allegation was not asserted in Seibert’s EEOC charge, she has failed to preserve her claim and it must therefore be dismissed. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 626(d). Seibert raised new claims in her response to Lutron’s Motion for Summary Judgment that she was "singled out and forced to use her vacation time simply because she was having post natal problems with her twins.” Even if these claims were timely raised, they lack merit. See Piantanida v. Wyman Center, Inc., 116 F.3d 340, 342 (8th Cir.1997)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the confrontation clause of the united states constitution does not apply at sentencing under the us sentencing guidelines manual and the procedural protections afforded a convicted defendant at sentencing are traditionally less stringent than the protections afforded a presumptively innocent defendant at trial
B. holding that an individual charged with criminal contempt is entitled to the full procedural protections afforded the defendant in any other criminal proceeding
C. holding that presumption of regularity is afforded to clerks of court performing their official duties
D. recognizing similar duties
E. holding that postnatal childcare duties are not within the protections afforded by the pda
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.