Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Defendant asserts that the 1991 Amendments to Title VII do not apply to § 1981 claims, and therefore that a successful mixed-motive defense is still a complete bar to liability under § 1981. The Second Circuit has not directly addressed this question. However, that court has concluded that § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) does not apply to retaliation claims under Title VII, see Matima v. Celli, 228 F.3d 68, 81 (2d Cir.2000), nor to claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), see DeMarco v. Holy Cross High Sch., 4 F.3d 166 (2d Cir.1993). Other circuits that have directly addressed this question have concluded that the 1991 Amendments do not apply to § 1981. See Mabra v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local Union No. 1996, 176 F.3d 1357, 1357 (11th Cir.1999) ; Aquino v. Honda of Am., Inc., 158 Fed.Appx.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively
B. holding that the  1981 amendments contained in  101 of the civil rights act of 1991 do not apply retroactively
C. holding that 1991 amendments to other aspects of  3910114lai clarified intent of 1988 amendments to statute
D. holding that a plaintiff could not assert a  1981 claim based on gender discrimination
E. holding that the 1991 mixedmotive amendments do not apply to  1981 based on an independent analysis of the amendments and  1981
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.