Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the challenged conduct did not violate a constitutional right (the objective element) and the official undertook the challenged conduct in a good-faith belief that the conduct was valid (the subjective element). However, on further consideration, the Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald stated, “[t]he subjective element of the good-faith defense frequently has proved incompatible with our admonition in Butz that insubstantial claims should not proceed to trial.” 457 U.S. 800, 815-16, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Therefore, the modern qualified immunity doctrine is viewed only through the lens of objective reasonableness. Id., at 815-16, 102 S.Ct. 2727. Title VI Claims Plaintiff appears to bring his Title VII claims against both the individual Defendants — in t 084 (5th Cir.1981) ; Chavez v. McDonald’s Carp., 1999 WL 814527,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii
B. holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii
C. holding that a supervisor who implemented a maternity leave policy that violated the terms of title vii could not be held individually liable
D. holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii
E. holding individual employees may be liable under title vii
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.