Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
errors in it. Id. at Ex. 2, ¶ 29. Moreover, she failed to prepare for the March 10, 2004 meeting, and then became so emotional during the meeting that she could not function. Id. at Ex. 2, ¶¶ 31-33. She admits that she was falling behind at work, that she lacked focus, and that she was misplacing things. (R. Doc. 30-5 at Ex. 4, pp. 173-74, 180). The evidence supporting each of these contentions is not in dispute. When there is overwhelming and uncon-tradieted evidence that an adverse employment action was taken for other reasons, mere temporal proximity between the adverse action and an employee’s protected activity is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether an employee was fired for taking leave. See Swanson v. General Services Admin., 110 F.3d 1180, 1188 (5th Cir.1997) ; Alfonso-Ferro v. Stolthaven New Orleans,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the race classification is required to make a prima facie race discrimination case
B. holding that in title vii disparate treatment case in order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case the plaintiff must proffer evidence among other things that she performed her job according to her employers legitimate expectations if the plaintiff establishes the prima facie case the presumption shifts the burden to the employer to produce a legitimate nondiseriminatory reason for its actions
C. holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity
D. holding in a race discrimination case that close timing is an element of the plaintiffs prima facie case but insufficient on its own to rebut a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason that explains the action and its timing
E. holding that once an employer asserts a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action it has done everything that would be required  if the plaintiff had properly made out a prima facie case so whether the plaintiff really did so is no longer relevant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.