Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
¶ 67), regularly evaluates the performance of agency nurses, PI. Statement ¶ 28; Def. Counterstatement ¶ 28, and could prohibit an agency nurse from continuing to work at Bellevue if it believed she had committed a major violation of some rule or if it was otherwise dissatisfied with the nurse’s performance, Def. Counterstatement ¶¶ 29, 70. From all the foregoing, it is obvious that no evidentiary dispute remains that is material to the determination here in issue but that, rather, consideration of the undisputed “circumstances of the whole activity viewed in light of economic reality” demonstrates that Bellevue exercised functional control over plaintiff and was her joint employer. Cf. Amamare v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 611 F.Supp. 344, 349 (S.D.N.Y.1984) . Defendants’ fallback arguments are that, even
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is no individual liability under title vii
B. holding that under title vii a temporary employee was employed by both her temp agency and the business at which she worked on a temporary basis
C. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii
D. holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii
E. holding that disclosure was required where the current employer permitted the paralegal to work on the same litigation she had worked for at her prior firm even after becoming aware that she had previously worked on the case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.