Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
status under Law 100. Law 100 prohibits discrimination by an “employer” based on the protected characteristic of, among other factors, age. P.R. Laws Ann. Tit. 29 § 146. The term “employer” is defined as “any natural or artificial person employing laborers, workers or employees, and the chief, official, manager, officer, managing partner, administrator, superintendent, foreman, overseer, agent or representative of such natural or artificial person.” P.R. Laws Ann. Tit. 29 § 151(2). As discussed above there is no evidence in the record to support Plaintiffs’ contention that Buck had any control over PRMMPs employment practices nor that it had any employment nexus with the Plaintiffs. Therefore, Buck is not liable under law 100. See Santini-Rivera v. Serv Air, Inc., 94 JTS 121, p. 182 . C. Buck’s status under ERISA. Plaintiffs
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the question of whether an existing constitutional right is infringed is strictly a question of law
B. holding that the legislation in question is exclusively concerned with labor matters its subject is strictly the employeremployee relationship translation ours
C. holding that the critical element in determining whether the provisions of the norrislaguardia act apply is whether the employeremployee relationship is the matrix of the controversy
D. holding that the jurisdictional reach under section 955a is strictly a question of law
E. recognizing employeremployee relationship between county school board and teacher
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.