Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of other federal circuits which have addressed the question, that the | ^McDonnell Douglas framework still applies to ADEA cases in the wake of Gross. In Cervantez v. KMGP Services Co. Inc., 349 Fed.Appx. 4 (5th Cir.2009) (unpublished per curiam), the U.S. Fifth Circuit noted: The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gross rejected the application of Title VIPs ‘motivating factor’ standard to ADEA mixed-motive cases. That holding has no affect on today’s analysis because, on appeal, [the plaintiff] did not advance a motivating-factor theory ... As [the plaintiffs] ADEA claim is based on circumstantial evidence, the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green applies. Id. at n. 7. See also Velez v. Thermo King de Puero Rico, Inc., 585 F.3d 441, 446-447 (1st Cir.2009) ; Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting approach applies to claims brought under the adea
B. holding that mcdonnell douglas framework which is used in title vii cases applies to ada cases when only circumstantial evidence of discrimination is offered
C. holding that the mcdonnell douglas framework applies equally to ada and rehabilitation act cases
D. holding that the mcdonnell douglas framework still applies to adea cases postgross
E. holding that adea and phra claims proceed under the mcdonnell douglas framework
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.