Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
not assert that she imported Pike is inconsistent with her interpretation of Shallal. No cases support Talhelm’s attempt to read the public-body requirement out of the statute. The relevant precedents are strictly to the contrary. See, e.g., Richards v. Metron Integrated Health Sys., No. 242502, 2004 WL 443991, at *2 (Mich. Ct.App. Mar.11, 2004) (unpublished opinion) (nursing home employee did not meet the “public body” element when he threatened to report patient abuse to higher-ups at the company); Roulston, 608 N.W.2d at 530-31 (denying employer’s motion for summary judgment against employee who had reported suspected resident abuse at a nursing home to state investigators); see also Allen v. Charter County of Wayne, 192 Fed.Appx. 347, 350-51 (6th Cir.2006) (unpublished opinion) . The Michigan Supreme Court has recently
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding woman who alleged she was terminated for having an abortion stated a prima facie case for discrimination
B. holding that a juror who initially equivocated as to her impartiality could be found impartial after she affirmatively said she thought she could be fair
C. holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position
D. holding that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of age discrimination based upon a showing that she was a member of the protected group she was qualified and capable of doing her job she was discharged and that her manager called her old woman thus evincing agebased animus sufficient to demonstrate discriminatory intent
E. holding that employee who admitted that she had no intention of affirmatively seeking out the state auditors or giving them any information  unless she was specifically asked could not establish a prima facie case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.