With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court cases noted above, did not attempt to define the word “race” nor did it provide a distinction between race and national origin. In the years following the Agnew decision the Ninth Circuit has been presented with a number of cases in which plaintiffs alleging membership in distinctive groups of the population brought suit pursuant to section 1981. In each of these cases the district court had either dismissed the complaint or entered judgment in favor of the defendants. In each instance the circuit court reversed and allowed the plaintiff to sue under section 1981 without any discussion of whether the claims involved discrimination on the basis of race or national origin or of whether such distinction could be made. See Scott v. Eversole Mortuary, 522 F.2d 1110 (9th Cir. 1975) (<HOLDING>); Sethy v. Alameda County Water District, 545

A: holding that africanamerican plaintiffs had stated a claim under section 1981 when they were forced to prepay for food ordered in restaurant
B: holding that an atwill employee may bring a cause of action under section 1981
C: holding by implication that plaintiff a brownskinned person of east indian descent had stated a proper claim under section 1981
D: holding that american indian plaintiffs had appropriately pled a claim under section 1981
D.