Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
jobs at the GS-12 grade level. See Luper Suppl. Decl. Ex. G, ECF No. 34-12 (labeling both jobs as "GS 12” positions on Mr. Willis’s resume). That Mr. Willis’s previous specialized experience was not credited to him is therefore insignificant in assessing Ms. Thompson and Mr. Willis’s comparative qualifications. 7 . Below, the Court addresses Ms. Thompson’s allegations of impermissible bias shown through factors other than her own qualifications. See infra Part IV.B.2. 8 . Other circuits, including the D.C. Circuit, corroborate this legal principle. See Hendricks v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1008, 1014 (D.C.Cir. 2009) (affirming summary judgment when the plaintiff’s evidence "supports at most favoritism, not sex discrimination’’); Caldwell v. Washington, 278 Fed.Appx. 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2008) ; Foster v. Dalton, 71 F.3d 52, 56 (1st
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when a plaintiff proves the defendants stated reasons for hiring someone else were pretext for offering the position to a personal friend and not a pretext for racial discrimination she does not establish triable issues of fact
B. holding that a plaintiff may rely on the same evidence to prove both pretext and discrimination
C. holding that the plaintiff cannot establish pretext because she is unable to show any causal connection
D. holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants reasons for not hiring the plaintiff were pretext because the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence other than her own subjective testimony that she was more qualified for the job than the selectee
E. holding that inconsistency in employers reasons for the termination is an indication of pretext
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.