Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
insufficient to overcome the dictates of the Eleventh Amendment.’ ” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (quoting Green, 474 U.S. at 68, 106 S.Ct. 423). Second, Ex Parte Young does not apply to suits seeking damages; it only applies to suits seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). The Court has said that suits for damages are suits against the state even if only the official is named as a defendant, because a damage remedy would require payment out of the state’s treasury. Id. Third, Ex Parte Young does not apply if the relief sought is “fully as intrusive” on a state’s sovereignty as a levy on funds in the state treasury. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. at 287, 117 S.Ct. 2028 . Fourth, Ex Parte Young does not apply to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because plaintiff did not apply for a job he could not be rejected in a title vii case
B. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii
C. holding that a renter who stole a motor home had void title not voidable title and could not convey good title
D. holding that arbitration agreement that did not provide for award of attorney fees to successful title vii claimant was unenforceable because the right to attorneys fees  is central to the ability of persons to seek redress from violations of title vii
E. holding that plaintiff could not use ex parte young to seek title to submerged lands
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.