Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
providing rights to “persons within the jurisdiction of the United States,” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), only protects persons within the United States’ territorial jurisdiction. See Pfeiffer v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., 755 F.2d 554, 556 (7th Cir.1985) (applying the presumption against extraterritoriality to the ADEA prior to the 1991 amendments, see ante at 302-303, because “[t]he normal basis of national sovereignty is territorial”). Second, the mere decision by a defendant in the United States to discriminate against employees abroad cannot serve as the basis for a claim pursuant to Section 1981. The statute prohibits acts of discrimination committed against “persons who are within the jurisdiction of United States,” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) (emphasis added). See Ortiz-Bou, 382 F.Supp.2d at 296-97 ; Theus, 738 F.Supp. at 1253 (“A decision to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that claims against a state under  1981 are barred by the eleventh amendment
B. holding that an atwill employee may sue under  1981 for racially discriminatory termination
C. holding that discriminatory acts that manifested themselves in a foreign country are not covered by section 1981
D. recognizing that section 1981 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment
E. holding that a divorce obtained in a foreign country is recognized by comity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.