Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
52 L.Ed.2d 571 (1977) (“A discriminatory act which is not made the basis for a timely charge is the legal equivalent of a discriminatory act which occurred before the statute [Title VII] was passed.... [I]t is merely an unfortunate event in history which has no present legal consequences.”). Reno cannot, due to the circumstances surrounding Metro’s refusal to promote her in 1991 and 1992, prevail on her claim that these incidents evince an overall pattern of continuing discriminatory conduct by Metro. Reno’s promotion denials occurred over a three year period and each involved a different hiring manager, negating Reno’s contention that such decisions were linked to or otherwise shared commonality with the 1993 promotion denial. See Scott v. Claytor, 469 F.Supp. 22, 25 (D.D.C.1978) ; Roberts v. Gadsden Memorial Hosp., 835 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a lender was barred from recovering repayment for loans made more than three years before filing suit where obligations without agreed repayment dates were deemed payable on demand and where the statute of limitations applicable to oral contracts was three years
B. holding that new york statute of limitations for  1983 actions was three years
C. holding that three sexually suggestive comments over a three month period were not frequent enough nor severe enough to be unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs work environment
D. holding that three denied promotions over the course of three years where the decisions were made by three different selection officials and involved different qualifications were not sufficiently related to constitute a continuing violation
E. holding that a complaint filed within three years of an accident complied with the michigan court rules and was not barred by the statute of limitations even though service was made more than three years after the accident
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.