Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)). Unfortunately, the Appellants’ attempt to establish that their decision to terminate Wright did not violate a clearly established right wholly misunderstands the limited nature of our interlocutory review. The Appellants contend that their decision to terminate Wright was based on HUD’s audit report, which suggested, at best, that he was a poor manager, and, at worst, that he was guilty of potentially criminal conflicts of interest. They further contend that their reliance on the report, whether or not mistaken, was not unreasonable under the circumstances. They conclude, therefore, that because Wright “cannot demonstrate that the individual Defendants were ‘p L.Ed.2d 348 (1981); Patrick v. Miller, 953 F.2d 1240, 1249-50 (10th Cir.1992) . Whether the Appellants’ decision to terminate
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an atwill employee may sue under  1981 for racially discriminatory termination
B. holding that plaintiff is entitled to assert claim of retaliatory transfer under  1981
C. holding that six cited cases were sufficient to inform a reasonable government official in 1988 that racially based retaliatory actions may violate the employees rights as enumerated in  1981
D. holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy
E. holding that retaliatory discharge demotion or other adverse employment claims state a cause of action under  1981
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.