Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
him, and likewise did not list himself as a party on appeal in his client’s notice. Moreover, Jones's brief in this action was filed on January 11, 2006, which was over two months after the final judgment was entered and well after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal had expired. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as to the entry of sanctions. 2 . Jones was terminated in May 2003, but did not file a claim with the EEOC until July 2004, which was well after expiration of the 180-day limitation period enumerated in Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2005e-5(e)(l); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). And he made no argument in favor of equitable tolling of the limitation period. Cf. Forehand v. Fla. State Hosp. at Chattahoochee, 89 F.3d 1562, 1570 n. 17 (11th Cir.1996)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the timely filing of a discrimination charge with the eeoc is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
B. holding that the filing deadline under title vii is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
C. holding that the timely filing of a discrimination charge with the equal employment opportunity commission is a requirement like a statute of limitations that is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
D. holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
E. holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.