Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
law recognized the causal link between a complaint and the ensuing arrest, it was in the situation where “misdirection” by omission or commission perpetuated the original wrongful behavior. See, e.g., Hand, 838 F.2d at 1428. If, however, there had been an independent exercise of judicial review, that judicial action was a superseding cause that by its intervention prevented the original actor from being liable for the harm. See Restatement of Torts (Second) § F.3d 1068, 1072-73 (2d Cir.1997) (concluding that the neutral, advisory role played by probation officers prevented the chain of causation from being broken where the sentencing judge adopted a recommended sentence which violated a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights); Lanier v. Sallas, 111 F.2d 321, 324-25 (5th Cir.1985) . The purported misrepresentation here,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing whiting as a maximum security mental health facility
B. holding that a plaintiff can establish a causal link by showing that the employers decision  was based in part on knowledge of the employees protected activity
C. holding that a judges decision to commit plaintiff to a mental health facility did not sever the chain of causation where that decision was based in part on a misrepresentation made by defendants
D. holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable
E. holding that an employers decision to terminate the plaintiff based on information supplied by a supervisor satisfies the causation requirement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.