Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in federal court. See Wilson v. MVM, Inc., 475 F.3d 166, 174-75 (3d Cir. 2007) (distinguishing between prudential and jurisdictional exhaustion requirements, and holding that the administrative-exhaustion requirement found in the Rehabilitation Act is prudential in nature). Turning now to the case before us, we note that HHC has raised a legitimate question as to whether Allen’s and Slone’s disparate-impact claims have been exhausted. Specifically, HHC plausibly contends that the plaintiffs did not adequately describe their discrimination claim such that an EEOC investigation into potential liability based on disparate impact could have “reasonably expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” See Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co., 932 F.2d 540, 545 (6th Cir.1991) (citation omitted) . Allen simply stated in her EEOC charge that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing this rule
B. holding that this court does not necessarily require the claim to be specifically raised in an eeoc charge provided that it satisfies this scopeofinvestigation test
C. holding that an original eeoc charge is sufficient to support  a civil suit under the act for any discrimination  developed in the course of a reasonable investigation of that charge provided such discrimination was included in the reasonable cause determination of the eeoc
D. holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal
E. holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.