Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
significantly, whether or not the Justice Department can be said to have been authorized to represent STS residents, this Court finds that the Justice Department did not adequately represent such residents. A finding of inadequate representation is required based upon the above discussion of the limited causes of action and types of relief available to and pursued by the Justice Department in United States v. Connecticut. Since the Justice Department did not seek all of the types of relief which plaintiffs seek in this case, it follows directly that the Justice Department’s representation was inadequate from a res judicata perspective, and that the plaintiffs are therefore not in privity with the United States. See Williamson v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 468 F.2d 1201, 1203 (2d Cir.1972) , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 981, 93 S.Ct. 1893,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original
B. holding that six employees bringing suit under title vii were not in privity with the united states which had brought a previous suit against the same employer because the employees sought a type of relief which the united states had not sought
C. holding that in statute authorizing suits against united states limits time period in which such suits may be brought united states retains its sovereign immunity as to any suits brought outside of that time period therefore court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over suit against united states that is barred by statute of limitations
D. holding that the united states may bring suit against a state to enforce compliance with federal law
E. recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.