Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
period. (Defs.’ Ex. 18 (Blood Aff.) ¶ 5.) As such, they were deprived of neither their ultimate- wages nor the immediate use of those wages. Accord Lovejoy-Wilson, 263 F.3d at 224 (finding adverse action from week-long suspension where plaintiff “may have at least suffered the loss of the use of her wages for a time”); cf. Markel v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisc. Sys., 276 F.3d 906, 911 (7th Cir.2002) (“Typically, adverse employment actions are economic injuries such as dismissal, suspension, failure to promote, or diminution in pay.”)(quoting Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 761-62, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (emphases added)). Moreover, there is no indication that the suspension served, or could have served, as the basis for any subsequent adverse action against plaintiff. See Russell, 257 F.3d at 819-20 . Indeed, the fact that Dickerson and Reed were
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that a set of actions may constitute an adverse employment action when considered collectively even though some actions do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action individually
B. holding that an unrealized risk of future adverse action even if formalized is too ephemeral to constitute an adverse employment action
C. holding that termination is an adverse employment action
D. holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action
E. holding that denial of a bonus was not an adverse employment action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.