Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
EEOC charges on a deferral basis, the time for filing a charge of employment discrimination is 180 days of the alleged unlawful occurrence. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). The parties agree that the 300-day rule applies in Arizona, a deferral state. 8 . As an initial matter, we doubt that the EEOC is subject to the same strict timing requirements with respect to exhaustion of remedies in Title VII as a private party before bringing a class suit. "Title VII claimants generally establish federal court jurisdiction by first exhausting their EEOC administrative remedies.” Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1456 (9th Cir.1990). However, it makes little sense for an agency to exhaust remedies before itself. See EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 288, 122 S.Ct. 754, 15 -41 (9th Cir.1976) . 10 . The district court misconstrued EEOC v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding eeoc could maintain an action alleging discrimination against women and minority groups although the original charge alleged only discrimination against males
B. holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex
C. holding that an original eeoc charge is sufficient to support  a civil suit under the act for any discrimination  developed in the course of a reasonable investigation of that charge provided such discrimination was included in the reasonable cause determination of the eeoc
D. holding eeoc could maintain action alleging discrimination against male employees in the administration of the retirement system although original charge was filed by female alleging discrimination on the basis of her sex
E. holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.