Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to establish their prima facie EPA claim, plaintiffs must show the employer paid male and female employees different wage rates for substantially equal work. Broadus v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 226 F.3d 937, 941 (8th Cir.2000). Plaintiffs offer the differing tuition remission plans afforded faculty of St. John’s and St. Ben’s to prove their disparate pay claim. The EPA’s regulations support plaintiffs’ view that a disparity in fringe benefits support an EPA claim. 29 C.F.R. § 1620.11. Defendants do not dispute that each college’s professors perform approximately equivalent work and receive comparable salaries at each institution. See Sorenson Aff., Ex. C, at 76. They do, however, challenge plaintiffs’ choice of the male comparator. See Strag v. Board of Trustees, 55 F.3d 943 (4th Cir.1995) ; Hofmister v. Mississippi State Dept. Health,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an individual who was selected employed controlled trained and paid  by the employer was an employee emphasis added
B. holding that an epa plaintiff must show she has selected an appropriate comparator
C. holding that because the plaintiffs skills had deteriorated during the period she claims she was paid less than a male employee who performed equal work the plaintiff was not entitled to proceed further under the epa
D. holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination
E. holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.