Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
The record supports that A Beka Books was an affiliate of PCC. Thus, under the terms of Bruhn’s contract with PCC, she was an employee of PCC even though she was assigned to work with the affiliate, A Beka Books. The only support cited by the trial court regarding its ruling that A Beka Books was Bruhn’s “actual” employer was a W-2 statement of Bruhn’s 2005 wages earned at A Beka Books, and the court’s determination that A Beka Books “is a separate legal entity from Pensacola Christian College and possesses a separate FIN/EIN number than does Pensacola Christian College.” However, the record on appeal does not support either finding. Moreover, a W-2 form is not conclusive evidence of an employment relationship. See Verchick v. Hecht Invs., Ltd., 924 So.2d 944, 945-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) . Rather, as this court stated in Hoar
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs claims were precluded by csra because actions complained of arose from federal employment relationship even though many of the alleged violations occurred after the employment relationship was terminated
B. holding that while the contract did not establish a formal fiduciary relationship the pleadings were sufficient to raise an issue as to the existence of an informal one
C. holding that w2 tax forms alone did not establish an employment relationship
D. holding that poor evaluations alone do not constitute an adverse employment action
E. holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish an agency relationship for service to be effective
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.