Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
there would be no openings — did not render her search unreasonable. Second, the fact that, once employed by Rite-Aid, Jewell failed to leverage up into a full-time job was not unreasonable, either. It is not surprising that her interim employment — the only job she found— made it difficult to find a different full-time job. Though her burden to find meaningful employment did not suddenly evaporate when she took on part-time work, all that is required is a reasonable effort to search. Jewell satisfied that standard here. See Lundy Packing Co. v. NLRB, 856 F.2d 627, 629-30 (4th Cir.1988). Third, although Jewell “willfully” left her job at Rite-Aid, an unlawfully laid-off employee is not required to accept or remain in less desirable working conditions. See Westin, 758 F.2d at 1129-30 . For Jewell to have stayed with Rite-Aid after
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under the first amendment speech can be pursuant to a public employees official job duties even though it is not required by or included in the employees job description or in response to a request by the employer
B. holding that the fact that a waitress quit a comparable job did not toll her backpay liability where the sinks at the new job backed up and flooded when it rained
C. holding that removal of job responsibility did not constitute an adverse employment action because there was no change in the plaintiffs job position grade pay or benefits
D. holding that a change in job duties was not an adverse employment action where the new job duties did not constitute qualitatively inferior work requiring any less skill or knowledge
E. holding that where the employer discontinues a specially created job the employer must offer another suitable job to the claimant or continue total disability payments
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.