With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 532, 539-40 (5th Cir.1998). 3 . See, e.g., Jones v. Flagship Int’l, 793 F.2d 714, 719-21 (5th Cir.1986). 4 . See also Wathen v. General Elect. Co., 115 F.3d 400, 404 (6th Cir.1997) (noting that a majority of the circuits considering suits against the agent of an employer "have held that an employee/supervisor, who does not otherwise qualify as an 'employer,' cannot be held individually liable under Title VII and similar statutory schemes’’); Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649, 651 (5th Cir.1994). ("We have refused to impose liability for backpay on individual public employees. [The plaintiff] offers no persuasive argument why Congress would not have intended to protect private employees, as well, from individual title VII liability.”); Harvey v. Blake, 913 F.2d 226, 227 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Aside from the instant case and Allen,

A: holding that there is no individual liability under title vii
B: holding that the qualified immunity of a public official does not necessarily protect a government employer sued on a theory of respondeat superior 
C: holding that title vii does not include a continuing violation doctrine
D: holding that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect a government official who is sued in an official capacity under title vii because title vii does not impose personal liability
D.