Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
her work to heightened scrutiny. A Title VII retaliation claim predicated on Knight’s alleged retaliatory supervision of Perry is not in the operative second amended complaint for the obvious reason that his supervision of Perry post-dates the amended pleading’s filing and, thus, had not yet occurred. While the operative complaint does set forth a Title VII retaliation claim, that claim does not allege that the filing of this lawsuit is the protected activity for which Perry suffered adverse action. At no time did Perry file a motion in the district court to amend the second amended complaint to add a Title VII retaliation claim based upon Knight’s alleged post-lawsuit retaliatory conduct, as this circuit generally requires. See Brown v. Snow, 440 F.3d 1259, 1266 (11th Cir. 2006) . Notwithstanding the nonexistence of the Title
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an officials failure to forward a complaint letter on the basis that plaintiff had filed an eeo complaint was direct evidence of retaliation
B. holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation
C. 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
D. 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
E. holding that a plaintiff can prove illegal retaliation under   1981 in the same manner as he establishes retaliation under title vii
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.