Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of any discrete act of discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). The latest date on which Plaintiff learned definitively of her impending termination was October 5, 2005, the date of a second letter Defendant sent to Plaintiff. That letter clearly and unequivocally told Plaintiff that her position would be eliminated and that she could be re-employed by Defendant through a 60-day bidding process. The letter dated October 5, 2005, if not the earlier letter relaying the same message on September 28, 2005, was the adverse employment action that triggered the running of the 300-day statute of limitations. See Del. State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980) . The fact that Plaintiff did not have evidence
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that  2401a statute of limitations on procedural challenge began to run at the latest on the date the challenged regulation was amended
B. holding that the date of discrimination is the date on which a decision not to hire a plaintiff becomes effective
C. holding that when the representations and warranties were made on the date of closing the statute of limitations began to run on that date even though the contract imposed cure and repurchase obligations on the defendant
D. holding that the date on which the plaintiff learned of the defendants denial of tenure not the date on which the plaintiff became unemployed was when the statute of limitations began to run
E. holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.