Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Cummings grabbed her hair and touched her skin; (3) Witt screamed at her; (4) Cummings and Witt suggested she apply for the African American Leadership Council to the exclusion of other opportunities; and (5) she was demoted from “intern” to “volunteer.” The first four of these do not describe “significant changes” in Adam’s “employment status,” and thus are not adverse actions. Although all four instances can be described as impolite, none changes Adam’s “wealth” or “career prospects.” And although they might be characterized as “humiliating” or “degrading,” Adam’s allegations fail to rise to the level that the Seventh Circuit has held is necessary to demonstrate a “significant negative alteration in the workplace.” See Breneisen v. Motorola, Inc., 512 F.3d 972, 982 (7th Cir. 2008) ; Rhodes v. Ill. DOT, 359 F.3d 498, 505 (7th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made
B. holding that the decision to reprimand or transfer an employee if rescinded before the employee suffers a tangible harm is not an adverse employment action
C. holding that a similar written reprimand provided to an architect of the capitol employee was not materially adverse because it merely criticized his job performance
D. holding that scolding an em ployee for absence by introducing the employee by saying this is amy you probably havent met her yet because she is never here may have been offensive to the employee but was merely a petty slight that does not amount to a materially adverse action
E. holding that notwithstanding fact that employer brought suit in its own name pursuant to ocga  349111 c only for the liquidated amount that had been paid to the employee in workers compensation benefits after employee failed to file his own tort action within one year of injury employee was not precluded from bringing his own separate action to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium but noting that employee received notice of employers suit only after filing his own action suggesting that court in which employers action was pending had wrongly denied the employees motion to intervene to which motion employer had objected noting that if employee had not moved to intervene in other action employees separate action would have been barred by laches and holding that thirdparty tortfeasor could move for mandatory joinder of the employer in the employees action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.