With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an employer’s agent and thus a statutory “employer” for purposes of liability, are not personally liable under Title VII and similar state laws. Wathen, 115 F.3d at 405-06. Principal Rybak and Superintendent Schlachter admittedly were Pittman’s “superiors,” but they do not qualify as statutory “employers” for purposes of federal civil rights laws. There is also a limitation on what federal civil rights claims Pittman can bring against CVCC. As an arm of the State, CVCC is immune from claims brought by Pittman pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. CVCC’s immunity stems from the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. A plaintiff is precluded from directly suing a State in federal court on these claims. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 350, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979)(<HOLDING>); see also Hafford v. Seidner, 183 F.3d 506,

A: holding that congress did not intend to disturb the states eleventh amendment protection in passing  1983
B: holding that the tia does not abrogate states immunity under the eleventh amendment
C: recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state
D: holding that  1983 does not override a states eleventh amendment immunity
D.