With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". filed suit seeking both monetary and injunctive relief against the University and various of its officers and agents (collectively the “defendants”), alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The University, which the plaintiffs concede is a state entity, moved to' dismiss the Equal Pay Act claim, as well as the claim for compensatory relief under Title VII, arguing that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal jurisdiction over these claims. The district court denied the defendants’ Eleventh Amendment defense, and the defendants appealed that decision to this Court under the collateral order doctrine, see Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 145, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993) (<HOLDING>). In our initial consideration of this case, we

A: holding that the collateral order doctrine allows for immediate appellate review of the denial of an eleventh amendment immunity claim
B: recognizing the collateral order doctrine for the first time
C: holding that pursuant to the collateral order doctrine and 28 usc  1291 a state may appeal from a district court order denying it eleventh amendment immunity
D: holding that the collateral order doctrine permitted interlocutory review of a denial of a motion for summary judgment under missouris sovereign immunity statute
A.