Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
plaintiffs evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict, as is Mathuris evidence in this case. See also Floyd v. Kellogg Sales Co., 841 F.2d 226, 228-29 (8th Cir.1988) (reversing ■ grant of JNOV where plaintiffs evidence of retaliation was centered on three statements); contrast Grizzle, 14 F.3d at 267-68 (upholding lower court’s grant of JNOV overturning jury verdict where evidence of retaliatory motive presented by plaintiff would not support a “reasonable jury finding of retaliation without engaging in impermissible speculation”). In the alternative, SIU argues that Keon was determined to “clean house” and would have terminated Mathur as Department Chair regardless of any retaliatory motive. See McNutt v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill., 141 F.3d 706, 709(7th Cir.1998) . The jury, however, was properly instructed
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the pricewaterhouse mixedmotives defense applies to retaliation claims
B. holding that the mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting framework applies to retaliation claims in the same manner as to discrimination claims
C. holding title vtis mixedmotives framework inapplicable to the adea
D. recognizing similar analysis applies to discrimination and retaliation claims
E. holding that the mcdonnell douglas framework is appropriate for analyzing singlemotive claims but not mixedmotives claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.