Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 108 S.Ct. 668, 671, 98 L.Ed.2d 830 (1988). 11 . Id. 108 S.Ct. at 672. 12 . 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 2301-02. 13 . Id. § 2301(b)(2); Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 833 (9th Cir.1991). 14 . Id. § 2302(b)(11). 15 . These remedies were refined and enhanced by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 § 3(a)(8), Pub.L. No. 101-12 § 3(a)(8), 103 Stat. 16, 18. We discuss the CSRA’s original, unamended remedies, because they were in effect when the events in this case took place. 16 . Bush, 103 S.Ct. at 2406 (emphasis added). 17 . Furthermore, even if we accepted the assumption that the Rollinses’ protected activity was not directly related to the job, some cases have applied Bush even in such circumstances. E.g., Kotarski v. Cooper, 866 F.2d 311 (9th Cir.1989) . The Rollinses insist that none of Mrs.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding plaintiffs supervisor subject to suit
B. holding that due to the csra a federal employee has no independent right of action for damages against a supervisor who improperly disciplined the employee for exercising his first amendment rights
C. holding that employer was entitled to discharge employee after he threatened life of his supervisor even if such misconduct was caused by employees disability
D. holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live
E. holding bush applicable when federal employee demoted allegedly because his supervisor disapproved of his living arrangements with woman friend
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.