With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". environment claim because Roddy had not demonstrated an instance of harassment or abusive conduct within the five-year statute of limitations applicable to Roddy’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See Drake v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 553 F.2d 1185, 1188 (8th Cir.1977) (applying Missouri five-year statute of limitations to a cause of action under § 1981). According to the trial court, the last act of harassment directed at Roddy was the kicking incident in April 1991, and the statute of limitations ran back only to March 1992. Although Roddy agrees that conduct prior to March 1992 is not actionable, Roddy contends that the record as a whole shows the existence of a pattern of harassment more recently than March 1992. See Van Steenburgh v. Rival Co., 171 F.3d 1155, 1159 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). However, even assuming that Roddy suffered

A: recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983
B: holding that consideration of the entire scope of a hostile work environment claim including behavior alleged outside the statutory time period is permissible for the purposes of assessing liability so long as any act contributing to that hostile environment takes place within the statutory time period
C: holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive
D: holding a hostile work environment claim viable when the cumulative effects of a prolonged pattern of harassment extended into the limitations period
D.