Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Jerry Crawford.” Complaint, ¶ VII. May further stated that “because the sexual harassment caused Plaintiff to leave her employment and because the said harassment interfered with her advancement within the company, the sexual harassment claimed in the Plaintiffs complaint did, in fact, result in a tangible job detriment.” Response Brief at 2. Here, the court agrees with Autozone that May has not suffered- any tangible employment action, as that term is defined above. When an employee quits, even when under stressful or undesirable conditions, it simply is not a company act. May was not fired, and has presented no evidence that she was passed over for a promotion, reassigned, or given any change in benefits. See Young v. R.R. Morrison & Son, Inc., 159 F.Supp.2d 921, 924 (N.D.Miss.2000) . The court is of the opihion, that with regard
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave
B. holding that a plaintiff in a sex discrimination suit did not suffer an adverse employment action where her employer withheld one days pay and it was not reinstated
C. holding that an initial denial of leave did not constitute materially adverse action because the plaintiff was ultimately allowed to take the leave without any other consequence to her
D. holding that because plaintiff chose to leave her employer she did not suffer any tangible employment action
E. holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.