Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
has not imposed strict liability for disparate impact. Pfaff recognized that a defendant may rebut a plaintiffs showing of disparate impact by “supplying] a legally sufficient, nondiscriminatory reason.” 88 F.3d at 746-747 (noting that “the appropri ate standard of rebuttal in [Title VII] disparate impact cases normally requires a compelling business necessity”). The question here is what constitutes a legally sufficient reason for a municipality executing its congressionally mandated duties under TEFRA. While we are mindful of the guidance Title VII often provides in FHA,cases, the defense of “business necessity” in the employment discrimination arena does not transpose cleanly into the circumstances present here. Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo, 564 F.2d 126, 148 (3rd Cir.1977) . Congress required the city council to hold a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that importing the defense of business necessity from the employment discrimination context to a claim under the fair housing act is of somewhat uncertain application
B. holding that claims arising under the age discrimination in employment act may be subject to arbitration
C. holding that the elements of a criminal necessity defense under  951 are the same as the civil privilege defense
D. holding that the most analogous claim for relief under new york law is a claim for employment discrimination
E. holding that city council is entitled to absolute legislative immunity from claim under the age discrimination in employment act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.