Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Mem. Supp. Summ. J. at 13). The plaintiff fails to meet the fourth prong of the McDonnell Douglas test, which requires that he show that AMHA treated him differently than employees outside the protected class for the same or similar conduct. Under Mitchell, the Sixth Circuit held that sharing the same supervisor and being subject to the same standards are not sufficient to establish that a non-minority employee is similarly situated. See generally, Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 582 (6th Cir.1992). Singfield must show that the non-minority employees “have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.” Clayton v. Meijer, Inc., 281 F.3d 605, 611 (6th Cir.2002)  Singfield cannot show that AMHA treated him
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim
B. holding that fourth element of a prima facie case is satisfied when the employees who were more favorably treated were situated similarly to the plaintiff
C. holding that caucasian employees who engaged in the same act as the plaintiff but it did not result in injury to others were not similarly situated
D. holding that a plaintiff who did not show that he was paid at a lower rate than similarly situated employees could not survive summary judgment
E. holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.