Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
— the “subject to” language. In giving deference to the Secretary’s position, the Court held: The Secretary’s approach rejects a wooden requirement of actual deductions, but in their absence it requires a clear and particularized policy — one which “effectively communicates” that deductions will be made under specified circumstances. This avoids the imposition of massive and unanticipated overtime liability ... in situations in which a vague or broadly worded policy is nominally applicable to a whole range of personnel but is not “significantly likely” to be invoked against salaried employees. Id. at 910. The instant case presents an issue that has not been addressed by the Second Ci L.Ed.2d 336 (1995); see also Kuchinskas v. Broward County, 840 F.Supp. 1548, 1553 (S.D.Fla.l993), aff'd, 86 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir.1996), petition
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an initial denial of leave did not constitute materially adverse action because the plaintiff was ultimately allowed to take the leave without any other consequence to her
B. holding that leave banks do not constitute salary and that any reduction to leave banks would not negate an exempt employees status
C. holding that accused was not in custody when told he was not under arrest and was free to leave and did in fact freely leave the interview
D. holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave
E. holding that the employees reference to his mental condition did not constitute the requisite notice of an intent to invoke fmla leave
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.