Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that Claimant had pursued that position in good faith. (R.R. 83-5a.) The duties of the position were “[c]ontacting organizations by phone to recruit fund raising campaigns.” (R.R. 109a.) She again indicated that the duties were within Dr. Durning’s sedentary work guidelines. After reviewing the six job referral notices, we disagree that they were insufficient to put Claimant on notice of the general duties and the exertional classification of the positions. Four-Way Construction. Certainly, the notices were sufficient to put Claimant on notice of the basic job duties and of the fact that they were within the sedentary guidelines set forth by Dr. Durning. Compare School District of Philadelphia v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Stutts), 145 Pa.Cmwlth. 413, 603 A.2d 682 (1992) . We note, however, that at least three of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the employer discontinues a specially created job the employer must offer another suitable job to the claimant or continue total disability payments
B. holding that job referral notices without information advising a claimant that the job was within a category for which he received medical clearance were insufficient under kachinski
C. recognizing that employer is not obligated to produce evidence of change in physical condition as required by kachinski when modification request is based solely on job availability and allowing employee the benefit of same rule
D. holding that removal of job responsibility did not constitute an adverse employment action because there was no change in the plaintiffs job position grade pay or benefits
E. holding that an individual is not qualified for a job if there is a genuine substantial risk that he could be injured or could injure others and the employer cannot modify the job to eliminate that risk
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.