Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
basis of injuries to third parties, unless the plaintiff additionally demonstrates “a close relation to the injured third party and a hindrance to that party’s ability to protect its own interests.” Mid-Hudson Catskill Rural Migrant Ministry, Inc. v. Fine Host Corp., 418 F.3d 168, 174 (2d Cir. 2005). Here, however, Salim is not suing on his parents’ behalf; instead, he seeks to assert his rights under a contract he allegedly formed with the Trustee. And while Sal-im’s parents may have been beneficiaries of this alleged agreement, insofar as it purported to shield them from suit, Salim brings this action as the contract’s principal. Moreover, Salim seeks to recover damages for his own injuries, not for any injuries his parents may have sustained. See, e.g., Leibovitz, 252 F.3d at 188 . Accordingly, the doctrine of third-party
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983
B. holding that plaintiffs allegations of loosely related actions that she perceived to be hostile to her based on her race are insufficient to meet the heavy burden required to prove hostile environment
C. holding that two alleged incidents of hostile treatment in which a supervisor made a comment about the plaintiffs body and touched her breasts with some papers did not constitute a hostile work environment
D. holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive
E. holding that a plaintiffs psychological distress was not vicarious in a hostile work environment case where she experienced her workplace as hostile by reason of the alleged harassment of other women out of her presence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.