Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
because senior managers assign employees major responsibilities, performance standards, and CSFs at their discretion (id. at 15-17, 19). However, Dr. Banks concedes that evaluations and CSFs are not applied consistently between regions or between supervisors in the same regions, and that their assessments of employees are not comparable; “essentially their evaluations do not permit ‘apples to apples’ comparisons” (id. at 17-18, 27). This incomparability undermines plaintiffs claim of commonality: even if one supervisor used Allstate’s subjective employment practices “as a mask for discrimination,” that does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that any other supervisors did so. See, e.g., Morrison v. Panduit Corp., No. 03-3081, 2004 WL 3049816, at **2, 5 (7th Cir. Dec.21, 2004) . Dr. Banks’s opinion evidence does not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that evidence did not show that vice president discriminated against employee because vice president was not involved in many of the employment decisions at issue
B. holding that three municipal flow control ordinances similar to the one here at issue discriminated against interstate commerce
C. holding white female employee lacks standing under title vii to allege injury on behalf of black applicants to employment agency who were discriminated against because of race
D. holding that a sexual assault on a female employee was of a personal nature and not directed against the employee as part of the employment relationship
E. holding that a 3a12a enhancement was appropriate for attempted murder of the president although the defendant mistakenly shot at a lookalike
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.