With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". LLC In its motion to dismiss, Culver challenges the sufficiency of the allegations in the corporate plaintiffs’ complaint to support a § 1981 claim. Relying on out-of-district precedent, Culver argues that their allegations lack sufficient factual specificity demonstrating that race was the reason for its actions. At the outset, the Court notes that the corporate plaintiffs who were the parties to the franchise agreements with Culver have standing to bring a § 1981 claim here. See Amber Pyramid, Inc. v. Buffington Harbor Riverboats, L.L.C., 129 Fed.Appx. 292, 294 (7th Cir.2005) (allowing corporation owned by two African-American shareholders to maintain § 1981 suit) (citing cases); see also Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Here, the corporate entities are each

A: holding that title vii precludes a claim under section 1981 for racial discrimination against a federal employee
B: holding unequivocally that  1981 protects against racial discrimination in private employment
C: holding where corporation had acquired imputed racial identity and was direct target of discrimination it had standing to pursue  1981 claim
D: holding with little discussion that section 1981 applies to private racial discrimination
C.