Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law defamation claim. See Big Bear Lodging Ass’n v. Snow Summit, Inc., 182 F.3d 1096, 1106 n. 9 (9th Cir.1999). The district court erred as a matter of law in holding that Rivera’s defamation claim was preempted by FELA. See Gottshall, 512 U.S. at 556, 114 S.Ct. 2396. A claim for defamation does not result in a physical impact and is therefore not the type of claim that FELA was designed to encompass. See id. at 555-56, 114 S.Ct. 2396; see also Smith v. Union Pacific Railroad, 236 F.3d 1168, 1172 (10th Cir. 2000) (rejecting plaintiffs emotional distress claim under FELA because there was no physical impact causing the disorder); Grown v. Union Pacific Railroad, 162 F.3d 984, 985-86 (8th Cir.1998) . Rivera should therefore be permitted to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress
B. holding that employee could not state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under fela without a showing of physical impact
C. holding that under south dakota law compensation for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires manifestation of physical symptoms and intentional infliction of emotional distress requires an extreme disabling emotional response
D. holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute
E. holding that in being discharged employee did not sustain the direct physical impact required to maintain an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.