Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
an employer’s agent and thus a statutory “employer” for purposes of liability, are not personally liable under Title VII and similar state laws. Wathen, 115 F.3d at 405-06. Principal Rybak and Superintendent Schlachter admittedly were Pittman’s “superiors,” but they do not qualify as statutory “employers” for purposes of federal civil rights laws. There is also a limitation on what federal civil rights claims Pittman can bring against CVCC. As an arm of the State, CVCC is immune from claims brought by Pittman pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. CVCC’s immunity stems from the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. A plaintiff is precluded from directly suing a State in federal court on these claims. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 350, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979); see also Hafford v. Seidner, 183 F.3d 506,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that  1983 does not override a states eleventh amendment immunity
B. holding that congress did not intend to disturb the states eleventh amendment protection in passing  1983
C. holding that the tia does not abrogate states immunity under the eleventh amendment
D. recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state
E. holding that suits under 42 usc  1983 do not override state immunity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.