With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Eleventh Circuit is the only Circuit Court of Appeals to have addressed this question. In Wascura v. Carver, 169 F.3d 683, 686 (11th Cir.1999), the Court found that “a public official sued in his individual capacity is not an ‘employer’ subject to individual liability under the” FMLA. The Eleventh Circuit found that it was precedentially bound to so hold by a prior decision making the same finding with respect to public officials in the FLSA context. Id. The Court provided no other rationale for its holding. This Court respectfully disagrees with the minority view expressed in Wascura and joins the judicial majority, which has found that public officials may be held hable under the FMLA in their individual capacities. Carter v. U.S. Postal Serv., 157 F.Supp.2d 726, 728 (W.D.Ky.2001) (<HOLDING>); Morrow v. Putnam, 142 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1276

A: holding that public social service agencies were employers of inhome chore workers who served disabled public assistance recipients
B: holding that the public interest factor was not implicated in a noncompete case because the specific action at issue would not help or harm the public and the public interest factor is generally considered within the confines of disputes involving governmental agencies or programs rather than in the adjudication of private controversies
C: holding that under the fmla an employer includes both individuals and public agencies and therefore also includes individuals in public agencies
D: recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public
C.