Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was a GS-13 who performed duties similar to the ones plaintiff performed as Acting Team Leader. Id. 52:4-5. Yet plaintiff also conceded that Lane was not promoted to a GS-14 level. “Q. And did Iris Lane, did she ever become a GS-14? A. No.” Id. 52:6-8. Plaintiff therefore identifies no other individuals who were promoted when her alleged request was denied. Even if the Court looks more expansively at plaintiffs proposed comparables described above, there is no evidence that individuals performing work similar to plaintiff were employed at or above a grade 14 level. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Plaintiff herself admits that Iris Lane performed similar work and was also a grade 13. Id. 52:4-5. Kress indicates he performed similar work to plaintiff a Sept. 19, 2007) . B. 2003 Performance Evaluation Plaintiff next
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct
B. 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
C. holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position
D. holding that because there was no evidence before the court of any similarly situated employees who were promoted to a higher salary grade when plaintiff was denied a promotion plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote
E. holding that district court erred by requiring plaintiffs to show that they were better qualified than employees who were promoted in order to make a prima facie case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.