Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
used “unlawful and unreasonable” force against her while acting under color of state law. See Moore v. Indehar, 514 F.3d 756, 759 (8th Cir.2008) (“The right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures of the person ... [and] [a] section 1983 action is supported when a [state actor] violates this constitutional right.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We further construe the complaint as alleging a violation of Henley’s right to be free from gender-based discrimination inasmuch as she is asserting defendants, as state actors, intentionally discriminated against and sexually harassed her because of her gender. See Ottman v. City of Independence, Mo., 341 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.2003) ; Moring v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 243 F.3d 452,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding private actors are not acting under the color of state law for the purposes of section 1983 liability
B. holding that the equal protection clause also prohibits discrimination in jury selection on the basis of gender
C. holding intentional gender discrimination in public employment by persons acting under color of state law violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and is actionable under section 1983
D. holding that the electorate cannot order governmental action through a referendum which violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment
E. holding that racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.