With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1111 et seq. (CSRA). In Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983), the Supreme Court held that federal employees have no Bivens cause of action for personnel practices of their supervisors alleged to violate their Constitutional rights. In Bush, as in this case, the plaintiff alleged that an adverse personnel action against him was in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the exclusive remedy for such claims lies in the “elaborate, comprehensive scheme” provided by the CSRA, which “encompasses substantive provisions forbidding arbitrary action by supervisors and procedures — administrative and judicial — by which improper action may be addressed.” 462 U.S. at 385, 103 S.Ct. at 2415. See Hallock v. Moses, 731 F.2d 754, 757 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Washington v. Secretary of HHS, 693 F.Supp.

A: holding that federal employee could not sue supervisors for discharge alleged to have violated her first amendment rights
B: holding that due to the csra a federal employee has no independent right of action for damages against a supervisor who improperly disciplined the employee for exercising his first amendment rights
C: holding that federal employee cannot file for damages against supervisor for an unconstitutional adverse personnel action when congress has provided adequate administrative remedy
D: holding if an employee does not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern the employee has no first amendment cause of action based on his or her employers reaction to the speech
B.