Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
would hurt the store’s business, because of the lack of African-American customers at this location; and (ii) his purported statements at a department head meeting just before Johnson’s arrival in Wheelersburg that Johnson was not very intelligent and that the employees needed to work with him. Accepting, for the moment, that these remarks are indicative of racially discriminatory views, Newman necessarily must have made them before Johnson’s transfer to Wheelersburg in January of 1995, or nearly two years before Johnson was terminated in November of 1996. This sizable temporal gap precludes any reliance upon these alleged statements as supporting an inference of discrimination in Johnson’s eventual discharge. See Phelps v. Yale Security, Inc., 986 F.2d 1020, 1025-26 (6th Cir.) , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 861, 114 S.Ct. 175,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that isolated remarks are insufficient to prove discriminatory intent
B. holding that remarks made by decisionmakers could be viewed as reflecting discriminatory animus
C. holding that almost a year between plaintiffs eeo activity and the adverse employment decision is too great a length of time to support an inference of reprisal
D. holding that discriminatory remarks made nearly a year before the challenged employment decision could not support an inference of discrimination
E. holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.