Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
366 F.3d at 150; see also Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 147 (2d Cir.2003). Although the Second Circuit has held that there is no “magic” threshold number of harassing incidents that are required, as a matter of law, to state a claim, see Richardson, 180 F.3d at 439, “[isolated instances of harassment ordinarily do not rise to this level.” Cruz, 202 F.3d at 570. Generally, however, a hostile work environment is determined by “all the circumstances,” including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; [and] whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance .... ” Howley, 217 F.3d at 154 (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367); see Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Edüd 662, (1998) ; Brennan v. Met. Opera Ass’n, Inc., 192 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that simple teasing  offhand comments isolated incidents unless extremely serious are not discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment
B. holding teasing and offhand comments even if offensive are not actionable harassment
C. recognizing that the seventh circuit consistently has held that isolated comments that are no more than stray remarks in the work place are insufficient to establish that a particular decision was motivated by discriminatory animus
D. holding that isolated remarks are insufficient to prove discriminatory intent
E. holding no joint employer status despite some isolated incidents of supervision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.