Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
comments and one arguably racial remark over the course of the plaintiffs eight years of employment did not constitute pervasive conduct.” Smith v. Northwest Fin. Acceptance, Inc., 129 F.3d 1408, 1414 (10th Cir.1997). By our count, Ms. Hernandez presented evidence of at least a dozen racially offensive comments and jokes over the fourteen months Mr. Lillis supervised her in food services. But “the word ‘pervasive’ is not a counting measure” and the “trier of fact utilizes a broader contextual analysis.” Herrera, 474 F.3d at 680 n. 3. Considering the frequency, content, and context of the derogatory statements, we conclude that Ms. Hernandez established a genuinely disputed issue of fact as to the pervasiveness of the harassment in her work environment. See Smith, 129 F.3d at 1415 . The district court, citing Ford v. West, 222
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to support a finding that a similar position existed after his termination
B. holding evidence sufficient to support trial courts finding in aggravation that the offense was planned
C. holding that the evidence presented at a factfinding hearing was sufficient to support the chins finding
D. holding evidence of six sexually derogatory statements over twentythree months some repeated frequently sufficient to support a finding of pervasive harassment
E. holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.