With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". such deductions were being made. On the other hand, where a deduction not permitted by these interpretations is inadvertent, or is made for reasons other than lack of work, the exemption will not be considered to have been lost if the employer reimburses the employee for such deductions and promises to comply in the future. 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a)(6)(emphasis added). The employees contend that the window of correction is not available when the employer maintains a “pattern ... or policy of impermissible disciplinary deductions.” The facts found by the district court-coming down to two actual instances of arguably impermissible deductions-would not sustain a finding of such a pattern or policy. In any event, the text of the regulation contains no such limitatio 765, 767 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Application of the window of correction on

A: holding under 29 usc  216c
B: holding that the reinstatement of the right to an election of benefits may be an appropriate equitable remedy under 29 usc  1132a3
C: holding broad disciplinary policy and two deductions under unusual circumstances will not oust exempt status and may be remedied under 29 cfr  541118a6
D: holding that the finding that entities constitute a single enterprise under 29 usc  203r is separate and distinct from whether an entity is an employer under 29 usc  203d
C.