Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the private right of action made available under § 2114 was modeled after OSHA’s retaliatory discharge provision, 29 U.S.C. § 660(c). See S.Rep. No. 98-454, at 12 (1984), as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4831, 4842. Under OSHA, in order for a plaintiff to establish that he was terminated in retaliation for filing a health or safety complaint, he must show that the “protected activity was a substantial reason for the action,” although it “need not be the sole consideration behind discharge.” 29 C.F.R. § 1977.6(b). In such circumstances, as under § 2114, the ultimate question is whether the discharge or other adverse action would have “taken place ‘but for’ engagement in protected activity.” Id.; see also Dole v. H.M.S. Direct Mail Serv., Inc., 752 F.Supp. 573, 580 (W.D.N.Y.1990) ; Donovan v. Commercial Sewing, Inc., 562
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that although the plaintiff was a problem employee and eventually may have been terminated for that reason the immediate cause of his termination was the osha report
B. holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable
C. holding that although incorrect drug report was detrimental to employee employee had no claim against hospital because the report was not intended to primarily or directly benefit the employee
D. holding attendance problem was a legitimate basis for an employers termination of an employee
E. holding that without a provision stating that an employee can be terminated only for cause the atwill doctrine permitted termination in the absence of any reason at all summary judgment and directed verdict in companion cases affirmed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.