Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by applying a mistaken standard of review and mischaracterizing Haverda’s rebuttal arguments. This Circuit has held that summary disposition of the causation issue in First Amendment retaliation claims is generally inappropriate. Click v. Copeland, 970 F.2d 106, 113-14 (5th Cir.1992). Courts applying the Mt. Healthy doctrine in summary disposition analyses have held that if a plaintiff brings forth evidence of pretext, the determination whether the employer’s stated reasons are pretextual is a fact issue reserved for the jury. See Click, 970 F.2d at 113-14 (finding that evidence of motivation for adverse employment action, along with plaintiffs evidence supporting a contrary inference, is “fodder for the jury”); Brawner v. City of Richardson, Tex., 855 F.2d 187, 193 (5th Cir.1988) . Courts deciding the causation issue by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an eeoc reasonable cause determination letter did not constitute evidence precluding summary judgment when the other evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact
B. holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment
C. holding that there were genuine issues of material fact and reversing the district courts grant of summary judgment because in part the everchanging nature of the proffered reasons given for plaintiffs termination could be viewed as evidence tending to show pretext  
D. holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim
E. holding after considering the plaintiffs evidence of pretext that the determination whether the plaintiffs speech was the motivating factor in his discharge turns on a genuine issue of material fact
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.