With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in turn. 1. Per se violation A per se analysis is appropriate only after courts have had considerable experience with the type of restraint at issue, and only if courts can predict with confidence that it would be invalidated in all or almost all instances under the rule of reason. Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877, 127 S.Ct. 2705, 2713, 168 L.Ed.2d 623 (2007). Thus, courts have been “slow to condemn rules adopted by professional associations as unreasonable per se and, in general, to extend per se analysis to restraints imposed in the context of business relationships where the economic impact of certain practices is not immediately obvious.” F.T.C. v. Indiana Fed’n of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447, 106 S.Ct. 2009, 2018, 90 L.Ed.2d 445 (1986) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). In their consolidated summary judgment

A: holding that a plaintiff in a reverse discrimination case need show only that he is a member of a protected group and whites are a protected group under title vii
B: recognizing women as a distinct group
C: holding that category of restraints classed as group boycotts is not to be expanded indiscriminately
D: holding that plaintiffs statistics did not shed any light on the legally relevant issue because they did not indicate the group of applicants who were interviewed or even the group of applicants found qualified or the group of all applicants
C.