Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
("[A] prima facie case requires only a minimal showing before shifting the burden to the employer.” (citing St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993))). In contrast, we apply a "rigorous standard” when evaluating pretext at step three. Cherry v. Ritenour Sch. Dist, 361 F.3d 474, 479 (8th Cir.2004). 7 . Doucette offered six comparators at the district court; on appeal, she focuses her argument on two of them. The district court discounted evidence related to these two employees, finding Doucette had not corroborated their alleged misconduct beyond her own deposition and declaration. We note that Doucette may support her argument as to the existence of a disputed fact with materials in the record that include deposi , 109-10 (2d Cir.2010) ; Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii
B. holding that title vii and adea causation standards are different
C. recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap
D. recognizing ageplusgender discrimination claim when complaint brought claims under adea and title vii
E. holding the title vii mixedmotive theory does not apply to adea claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.