Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the right to tell a Labor Ready employee not to return to the shipyard if they were unsatisfied with the employee’s job performance. Although Lomeli speculated that he would follow Labor Ready’s instructions if they conflicted with Southwest’s instructions, he presented no evidence beyond this speculation that Labor Ready ever gave him any specific instructions on what to do at Southwest and how to do the work that Southwest employees assigned to him, let alone any instructions that conflicted with South west’s instructions. Instead, the only instructions Labor Ready gave to Lomeli were to be at Southwest at 3:30 on November 13, 2007, and to perform the work assigned to him by the Southwest supervisors. See Melancon, 834 F.2d at 1245; Capps, 784 F.2d at 617; cf. Brown, 984 F.2d at 677 . We conclude that Southwest “clearly had
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits
B. holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employees complaint alleged inter alia employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment employer tested employees blood to monitor lead levels employer willfully and intentionally withheld employees test results which showed employee had developed leadrelated diseases and employer subsequently altered those results to induce employee to continue working for employer employee further alleged employers concealment of employees condition prevented employee from reducing his exposure to lead and obstructed him from receiving appropriate medical treatment and that delay in treatment resulted in aggravation of employees injury
C. holding that fact issue raised when brown presented evidence that he was supervised by employee of his original employer and received instructions from that employee while working at union oil
D. holding that employee was not precluded from bringing separate employment discrimination action against employer where employee was not a party to consent decree entered into between eeoc and employer employee had rejected consent decree and had received no relief under decree
E. holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.