Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
unnecessary.” Johnson v. Potter, 177 F.Supp.2d 961, 965 (D.Minn.2001); see also V[a.] v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 388, 123 S.Ct. 1536, 155 L.Ed.2d 535 ... (2003) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (stating that “[i]n every culture, certain things [both “sacred” and “profane”] acquire meaning well beyond what outsiders can comprehend” and discussing cross burning as an example). Tademy v. Union Pac. Corp., 520 F.3d 1149, 1159 (10th Cir.2008). A reasonable jury could discredit an employee’s race-neutral explanation for hanging a life-sized noose. Ibid. Here, all three plaintiffs witnessed a noose in their place of employment. Although there is evidence that the person who placed the noose did so for non-discriminatory reasons, a jury could reasonably find to the contrary. Ibid.; see also id. at 1162 . It is true that the noose by itself is not as
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to find negligence jury need not find violation of federal motorcarrier regulation
B. holding that a jury could believe that a lifesize noose prominently suspended from a large industrial wall clock was meant to evoke a hangmans noose
C. holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff
D. holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified
E. holding that a jury could easily find that the noose was an egregious act of discrimination calculated to intimidate africanamericans
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.