With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment at 1-2. While the sociological constructs that differentiate "national origin” from "race" are complex and beyond the scope of this Order, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not described his race other than to state that he is of Puerto Rican ancestry. But see Cariddi v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., 568 F.2d 87, 88. (8th Cir.1977) (discussing section 1981 cases in which Puerto Rican plaintiff claimed national origin discrimination and not racial discrimination). 2 . Plaintiff's Complaint titles Count I as "Violation of Section 1981," but Plaintiff explicitly alleges Title VII violations against Defendants in his Complaint at ¶¶ 1, 2a, as well as implicitly at ¶ 28. See also Ferrill v. The Parker Group, Inc., 168 F.3d 468, 472 (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). 3 . Plaintiff alleges

A: recognizing that the test for intentional discrimination in suits under  1981 is the same as the formulation used in title vii discriminatory treatment cases
B: holding that title vii precludes a claim under section 1981 for racial discrimination against a federal employee
C: holding that direct evidence of discrimination is not required to prove discrimination in mixed motive cases under title vii
D: holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotive theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination
A.