Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and loss of interaction opportunities to qualify as materially adverse on their own. However, Ghori-Ahmad offers a clearer example of materially adverse action in alleging that USCIRF reduced her workload and downgraded the quality of her assignments.' Such allegations require precisely the kind of fact-bound contextual inquiry that the Supreme Court prescribed in Burlington Northern. See Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360, 365 (D.C.Cir.2007) (“Whether a particular reassignment of duties constitutes an adverse action for purposes of Title VII is generally a jury question”). Changes in job duties and responsibilities are not actionable where they cause a purely subjective harm to reputation or satisfaction, but may at a certain magnitude become materially adverse. See id. at 364-65 ; Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 902
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that potentially indefinite suspension of employee from work without pay could constitute materially adverse employment action even where employer awards full backpay for the entire period and that reassignment of responsibilities could constitute materially adverse employment action even absent demotion
B. recognizing possible adverse action where reassignment left plaintiff with significantly different  and diminished  supervisory and programmatic responsibilities
C. holding a transfer or reassignment may rise to the level of an adverse employment condition if it is a significant change in working conditions
D. holding that a teachers reassignment with a 17000 decrease in salary to take place one year following a teachers reassignment constituted an adverse employment action notwithstanding that the teacher was not demoted
E. holding that a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities is not an adverse employment action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.