Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
causing significant change in benefits.” Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). To constitute an adverse employment action, the conduct must be ‘“materially adverse’ to the employee’s job status.” Wells v. Colo. Dep’t of Transp., 325 F.3d 1205, 1213 (2003)(quoting Sanchez v. Denver Pub. Sch., 164 F.3d at 533). In Wells v. Colorado Dep’t of Transportation, the Tenth Circuit addressed whether a supervisor’s “poor treatment” of the employee was sufficient to establish an adverse employment action. 325 F.3d at 1214. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that the supervisor undermined her authority at a work site when they had a disagreement in front of other workers. See id. In denying the plaintiffs claim that 98, 1104 (10th Cir.1998). “There is little support for the argument
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that a set of actions may constitute an adverse employment action when considered collectively even though some actions do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action individually
B. holding that termination is an adverse employment action
C. holding that a written warning may be an adverse employment action for purposes of a fmla claim only if it effects a significant change in the plaintiffs employment status
D. holding that written warnings that impacted the probability an employee would be terminated are adverse employment actions
E. recognizing that employment actions can be adverse even if such actions are subsequently withdrawn
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.