Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was discriminatory. Pl.’s Mot. at 4, 7-8; Pl.’s Opp’n at 6-8. Where a plaintiff seeks an inference of discrimination based on “disparate treatment,” he must show that “all of the relevant aspects of [his] employment situation were ‘nearly identical’ to those” of the other employees who did not suffer similar adverse employment actions. See Neuren v. Adduci, Mastriani, Meeks & Schill, 43 F.3d 1507, 1514 (D.C.Cir.1995) (finding that a female plaintiff failed to demonstrate disparate treatment where comparator was both male and “lower in seniority” than the plaintiff); see also Barbour v. Browner, 181 F.3d 1342, 1345 (D.C.Cir.1999) (finding that two employees were not similarly situated where one was a GS-12 and the other a GS-13); Holbrook v. Reno, 196 F.3d 255, 261-62 (D.C.Cir.1999) . Here, the other employees the plaintiff
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding codefendants were not similarly situated because one had a less extensive criminal history
B. holding that potential class members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs if they are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions
C. holding that employees of differing seniority levels were not similarly situated
D. holding that caucasian employees who engaged in the same act as the plaintiff but it did not result in injury to others were not similarly situated
E. holding that fourth element of a prima facie case is satisfied when the employees who were more favorably treated were situated similarly to the plaintiff
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.