Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to Young, falls short of the required showing necessary to establish that his claim reasonably grew out of the EEOC charge. For a charge to grow out of an ensuing investigation, the plaintiffs EEOC charge must, at a minimum, relate facts that would prompt the EEOC to consider or investigate other forms of discrimination. See Haithcock v. Frank, 958 F.2d 671 (6th Cir.1992) (noting that plaintiffs complaint contained factual predicates that supported court review of allegations of race and disability discrimination). The facts set forth in Young’s charge explicitly limit his allegation to that of age discrimination and there is no evidence to conclude that the EEOC uncovered facts that would suggest otherwise. See Abeita v. Trans-America Mailings, Inc., 159 F.3d 246 (6th Cir.1998) . Viewing the determination letter as a whole,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination
B. holding that a claim of retaliation for filing eeoc charges is cognizable under  1981
C. holding court did not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs retaliation claim where plaintiff did not check the retaliation box or describe anything that indicates such a claim in the eeoc complaint
D. holding retaliation claim not reasonably related to discrimination charges where eeoc complaint set forth retaliation as a motive for plaintiffs termination and not as a motive for plaintiffs overtime assignments
E. holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.