Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992), found that the plaintiffs are entitled to be made whole and, therefore, compensatory damages are appropriate forms of relief. See 503 U.S. at 69, 112 S.Ct. 1028. That case, however, did not reverse long-standing judicial attitudes regarding emotional distress damages awards in contract cases. The compensatory damages that Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch. found appropriate do not include extraordinary damages, such as punitive awards and emotional distress damages. See Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. at 188, 122 S.Ct. 2097 (“[I]t must be concluded that Title VI funding recipients have not, merely by accepting funds, implicitly consented to liability for punitive damages.”); Bradford v. Iron County C-4 Sch. Dist., 1984 WL 1443, at *7 (E.D.Mo.1984). Even if the Court were to assume that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in wrongful pregnancy suit that expenses of raising and educating child were not recoverable elements of damages but emotional distress was recoverable element
B. holding damages for emotional distress are not recoverable in an action for breach of contract whether express or implied in the absence of a showing that the parties contemplated such damages at the time the contract was made
C. holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute
D. holding that emotional distress damages are not recoverable under section 504
E. holding emotional distress damages for a willful violation of the automatic stay were recoverable against the social security administration
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.