Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
979, 101 S.Ct. 1513, 67 L.Ed.2d 814 (1981). In this respect, she needs only to prove that she has suffered an adverse personnel action that was causally-related to her engaging in protected activity. See Berger v. Iron Workers Reinforced Rodmen, 843 F.2d 1395, 1423 (D.C.Cir.1988). Here we have a proposed stipulation by the defendants that the plaintiff at all times relevant to her retaliation claim engaged in protected activity. This means that at the forthcoming trial the jury should be informed generally about the plaintiffs prior allegations of sexual harassment, but not about the specific events underlying the same. Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence mandates such a procedure. See Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 702 F.2d 1037, 1043 (D.C.Cir.1983) . Thus, at trial, the jury shall be informed of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the defendant was in default the district court correctly accepted the fact allegations of the complaint as true
B. holding that speech about financial assistance and handling racial discrimination does not qualify as protected speech
C. holding a proffer of testimony is required to preserve the issue of whether testimony was properly excluded by the trial judge and an appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been
D. holding in a retaliation case that the trial court correctly excluded testimony about the details of the plaintiffs race discrimination complaint where the defendant had stipulated to the protected nature of the plaintifps speech
E. holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.