Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of employment are actionable under § 1981. Id. Similarly, other courts that have interpreted § 1981(b) overwhelmingly indicate that retaliation claims are actionable under § 1981. See, e.g., Steverson v. Goldstein, 24 F.3d 666, 670 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 731, 130 L.Ed.2d 634 (1995) (affirming jury’s finding on plaintiffs § 1981 claim of retaliation for his political activities); Butts v. City of New York Dep’t of Hous. Preservation and Dev., 990 F.2d 1397, 1404 (2d Cir.1993) (stating that if § 1981(b) were applied retroactively, plaintiffs allegations of discrimination in promotion and in the terms and conditions of her employment would state a cause of action under § 1981); Campbell v. Grayline Air Shuttle, Inc., 930 F.Supp. 794, 803 (E.D.N.Y.1996) ; Collins v. Executive Airlines, Inc., 934
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation
B. holding that plaintiff states a cause of action under  1981 by alleging that defendant harassed and retaliated against him for filing eeoc claim and otherwise attempting to receive redress for disparate treatment
C. holding that a claim of retaliation for filing eeoc charges is cognizable under  1981
D. holding that retaliation arising out of first eeoc filing was reasonably related to that filing obviating the need for a second eeoc charge
E. holding that plaintiffs claim of reduction in work hours in retaliation for her filing of eeoc charge states a cause of action under  1981
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.