Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
relationship.” Id. Hall contends that the CSRA does not preclude her Bivens action because although the CSRA provides for administra-five or judicial review of the action taken against her, her Bivens claim is not against her supervisor. Hall’s argument is without merit, however. The salient fact here is that the wrongful acts Hall alleges were taken against her arose out of her federal employment relationship. Because they did arise out of her federal employment, Bush and Zimbelman dictate that Hall’s claim is precluded. That the CSRA does not provide the remedy that she would prefer is of no moment. ■ See Bush, 462 U.S. at 388-90, 103 S.Ct. 2404 (refusing to allow a Bivens action even though “existing remedies [did] not provide complete relief’); Zimbelman, 228 F.3d at 370-71 ; cf. Lombardi v. Small Business Admin., 889
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding csra controlled plaintiffs claims which arose as result of employment relationship
B. holding that plaintiffs were not released from the exclusive remedial framework of the csra when their claims arose from their federal employment even though the csra provided plaintiffs with no remedy
C. holding that plaintiffs claims were precluded by csra because actions complained of arose from federal employment relationship even though many of the alleged violations occurred after the employment relationship was terminated
D. holding that the csras exclusive and comprehensive remedial scheme precludes review under the apa of disputes that concern not only employment practices specifically prohibited under the csra but also employment practices that are so insignificant as not even to bear mention in the csra
E. holding that federal employee was precluded from bringing  19851 claim because the csra is the exclusive remedy for aggrieved federal employees advancing nonconstitutional claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.