Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and the failure of the City to award promotions to the plaintiffs. Only one racist comment was mentioned— the “rug head” remark — and that comment was directly tied to the failure to promote one of the plaintiffs’ black colleagues. The plaintiffs claim to have verbally notified EEOC officials about other facts that support their hostile-work-environment claim, but the record contains no evidence beyond bald, nonspecific assertions that they did so. No decision in this circuit has held that EEOC charges regarding discrete acts of discrimination are alone sufficient to put the EEOC on notice of a hostile-work-environment claim. Several unpublished decisions of this court have in fact held to the contrary. See, e.g., Brown v. City of Cleveland, 294 Fed.Appx. 226, 234-35 (6th Cir.2008) ; Scott v. Eastman Chem. Co., 275 Fed.Appx.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the amendment added a new substantive theory which is fundamentally distinct from the original race discrimination charge it did not relate to or grow out of the plaintiffs original eeoc charge
B. holding that claimant exhausted administrative remedies only as to the complaints made in the original charge and factually related claims that reasonably could be expected to grow out of the administrative investigation of that charge
C. holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive
D. holding that an eeoc investigation of a hostile work environment could not reasonably be expected to grow out of a charge describing the denials of a promotion and a handicapped parking space
E. recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.