Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
persons. Fla. Stat. § 768.74(5). Taking each factor in turn, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the jury’s award of compensatory damages. The first factor asks whether the award evinces passion or prejudice. The district court cited Goldsmith v. Bagby, 513 F.3d 1261, 1275 (11th Cir.2008), to show the validity of an emotional damages award equal to a claimant’s salary. See Myers v. Cent. Fla. Invs., Inc., No. 6:04-cv-1542-Orl-28DAB, 2008 WL 4710898, at *15 n. 13 (M.D.Fla. Oct. 23, 2008). But the validity of the compensatory award was not at issue in Goldsmith, see 513 F.3d at 1267-68, 1276-77, and, as the defendants argue, its relevance to our inquiry is therefore limited. Cf. Bravo v. United States, 532 F.3d 1154, 1166-67 (11th Cir.2008) , reh’g denied, 583 F.3d 1297 (2009).
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that issue of attorneys fees should be retried if damages awarded are reduced on appeal and appellate court can not be reasonably certain that trial court was not influenced by erroneous damages award
B. holding that consequential damages are not to be considered
C. holding that damages are to be compared only against awards tested for size in reported appellate decisions
D. holding that it was appropriate for trial court to award separate punitive damages awards against an employee and his vicariously liable employer because this would enable each award to be based on the two defendants differing financial status
E. holding that the state is immune from punitive awards
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.