Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of retaliation Bell must first present evidence establishing a prima facie case — she has failed to do so. Specifically, Bell has not, and cannot demonstrate that she was terminated because of the EEOC claim she filed. Bell contends that the fact that her termination came seven months after her EEOC claim provides evidence of the causal connection. Mere timing alone is insufficient in this instance to satisfy the causation element of the prima facie case. B Even were a prima facie case established, Bell has failed to adequately refute the Bank’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Bank of America contends that it eliminated Bell and Barnhart’s positions due to restructuring in the corporation. See E.E.O.C. v. Tex. Instruments, Inc., 100 F.3d 1173, 1181 (5th Cir.1996) . Thus it falls to Bell to demonstrate that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that drugrelated misconduct is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination
B. recognizing that an employers decision to eliminate a position is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating a position or employee
C. holding that an employee may establish that the legitimate reason for an employment decision offered by an employer is pretextual by showing by a preponderance of the evidence either that the discrim inatory reason was the true reason motivating the employers conduct or that the profferred legitimate reason was false
D. recognizing that even a personal grudge can constitute a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment decision
E. holding that temporal proximity is insufficient in and of itself to establish that the employers nondiscriminatory reason for discharging an employee was in fact pretextual
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.