With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000), however, a plaintiff may also bring a class-of-one equal-protection claim, alleging that the plaintiff “has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” 528 U.S. at 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073 (citing Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota Cnty., 260 U.S. 441, 43 S.Ct. 190, 67 L.Ed. 340 (1923); Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Cnty. Comm’n of Webster Cnty., 488 U.S. 336, 109 S.Ct. 633, 102 L.Ed.2d 688 (1989)). Similarly, discrimination against members of a non-protected class, such as White-Anglos, violates equal protection. See McDonald v. Santa Fe. Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 279-80, 96 S.Ct. 2574, 49 L.Ed.2d 493 (1976) (<HOLDING>); Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v.

A: holding unequivocally that  1981 protects against racial discrimination in private employment
B: holding that title vii proscribe racial discrimination in private employment against whites on the same terms as racial discrimination against nonwhites
C: holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii
D: holding that title vii precludes a claim under section 1981 for racial discrimination against a federal employee
B.