Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Qureshi and parents. 3 . The plaintiff also sued Principal Johnson for abuse of a teacher, but she conceded at the pretrial conference of this case that she will forgo this claim. 4 . These latter non-suspension-related allegations are substantive due process claims because the plaintiff argues that these actions were categorically unconstitutional, not that they were unconstitutional because they were taken before she received notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Charles v. Baesler, 910 F.2d 1349, 1352-53 (6th Cir.1990). 5 . The collective bargaining agreement between the JCTA and the Board (the "CBA”) does appear to grant the plaintiff a property interest in continued pay and benefits since it provides that a teacher may be suspended only for "just cause.” See Cleveland Bd 85); with Gillard v. Norris, 857 F.2d 1095, 1098
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that fiveday suspension was not de minimis deprivation where it was unreviewable under state law and included first amendment claims
B. holding that district court properlydiscounted four calls as de minimis
C. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible
D. holding that a robbery of 40 to 50 satisfied the de minimis standard
E. holding that a suspension from employment and deprivation of duties and equipment constitute discrete acts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.