Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
CFEPA and Title VII. Therefore, the court shall assume that Pecoraro’s CHRO case qualifies as "an investigation, proceeding, or hearing” under Title VII. 5 . Additionally, courts outside this Circuit, faced with factual circumstances similar to the facts at bar, have also read the participation clause in a broad and expansive manner to honor Title VII's remedial goals. See, e.g., Glover v. S.C. Law Enforcement Div., 170 F.3d 411, 413-14 (4th Cir.1999) (finding that the use of participation clause claim is not determined based on an employee’s testimony regardless of how unreasonable that testimony may be, and to hold otherwise "would do violence to the text of that provision and would undermine the objectives of Title VII.”); Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir.1997) ; Smith v. Columbus Metro. Hous. Auth., 443
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii
B. holding that the antiretaliation provision of title vii reaches to employees who involuntarily participate in such proceedings and employees who do not seek to assist title vii claimant
C. holding individual employees may be liable under title vii
D. holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii
E. holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.