With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". with respect to this aspect of Wilkinson's claims, nor could they have done so successfully. The defendant URI has long been held amenable to suit. See University of Rhode Island v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 2 F.3d 1200 (1st Cir.1993) and Vanlaarhoven v. Newman, 564 F.Supp. 145 (D.R.I.1983) (both holding that URI is not an alter ego of the state, and thus it cannot invoke the defense of sovereign immunity). Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the commission would qualify as an arm or an alter ego of the state, it could not avoid a claim seeking to vindicate a protected property interest in statutory employment benefits by invoking the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., R.I. Const. art. 1, sec. 16; see also Pellegrino v. The Rhode Island Ethics Commission, 788 A.2d 1119 (R.I.202) (<HOLDING>). 15 . The memoranda included (1) a memorandum

A: holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims
B: holding that sovereign immunity does not protect the state from claims for statutory employment benefits that constitute a protected property interest
C: holding that the united states is liable for interest only in the event of a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity
D: holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity
B.