Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(including changing leadership and terminating some employees) and then merged with PA’s Information Technology Infrastructure group. (Moynihan Dep. at 78-79, 130-131.). At that point, the record shows that Mr. Moynihan put Patrick Kelly, the Head of the Information Technology Infrastructure practice, in charge of implementing the RIF, see Moynihan Dep. at 130-131, and Mr. Kelly testified that he decided to include Ms. Barnett in the RIF because her trade practice did not fit with the Transportation Group’s practice. (Kelly Dep. at 223-224.). The court finds that PA has produced sufficient evidence to indicate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Ms. Barnett. See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259-260, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) . The burden is now on Ms. Barnett to produce
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an order was final for these identical reasons
B. holding that in producing nondiscriminatory reasons for its challenged action the employer is not obligated to support these reasons with objective evidence sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard
C. holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext was insufficient because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the employer did not honestly believe its proffered reasons for its action
D. holding that plaintiff need only point to sufficient evidence to support an inference that the employer did not act for its proffered nondiscriminatory reasons
E. holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.