Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or discrimination .... ” Id. at 49.60.215. The plain tiffs in this case argue that the “task or function” inquiry “directly or indirectly” resulted in discrimination. Pi’s Comp., docket no. 1, p. 20. Washington state courts have noted that state law relating to disability discrimination substantially parallels federal law, and courts should look to interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws, including the ADA, when applying the WLAD. See Matthews v. NCAA, 179 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1229 (E.D.Wash.2001); see MacSuga v. County of Spokane, 97 Wash.App. 435, 442, 983 P.2d 1167 (1999) (commenting in dicta that the WLAD and ADA “have the same purpose” and state courts therefore may look to federal cases for guidance); see also Kees v. Wallenstein, 161 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir.1998) . The plaintiffs did not address the issue of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that claims under the adea and the nyshrl are subject to the same analysis
B. holding that courts should employ the same analysis to evaluate claims under the ada and the wlad
C. holding the same
D. holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act
E. recognizing the same analysis applies under the wlad and title vii
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.