Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
so doing, the court cited Mercer v. Cedar Rapids, 308 F.3d 840 (8th Cir.2002), for the proposition that “no liberty interest of constitutional significance is implicated when the employer has alleged merely improper or inadequate performance, neglect of duty or malfeasance.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The court further explained that “ ‘[describing [Brown’s] conduct as malfeasance due to its capacity to damage public confidence in the [c]ounty’s emergency response system adds little to the reputation injury Brown suffered as a result of the disclosure of the conduct itself.’” Id. “[0]ur Supreme Court has held that absent a pronouncement by the United States Supreme Court, decisions of the inferior federal courts are not binding upon Pennsyl .Supp.2d 487, 498 (M.D.Pa.2011) . Due to the weight of authority supporting the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that competency hearing not required when judge alone raises issue of competency
C. holding that removal of job responsibility did not constitute an adverse employment action because there was no change in the plaintiffs job position grade pay or benefits
D. holding that statements did not satisfy stigma prong because they concerned only professional competence
E. holding that statements did not stigmatize employee because they concerned competency and job performance
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.