With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as an "otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus” under section 1985. See 506 U.S. at 269, 113 S.Ct. 753. The Supreme Court disagreed. It cast the clinics' argument as an approach that incorrectly equated opposition to an activity that can be engaged in by women only with opposition to women, and vacated the judgment that had been awarded to the abortion clinics under section 1985. 20 . Plaintiffs also assert that nothing in the text of FLSA appears to limit relief to individuals like Plaintiffs, who allege that they were hired largely through maintenance contractors. (PI. Br. at 12 n. 3 (citing Donovan v. DialAmerica Mktg., Inc., 757 F.2d 1376, 1382 (3d Cir.1985))). 21 . But cf. Renteria v. Italia Foods, Inc., No. 02-495, 2003 WL 21995190, at *6 (N.D.Ill. Aug.21, 2003) (<HOLDING>). 22 . The district court decisions cited by

A: holding compensatory and punitive damages constitute legal remedies
B: holding that title vii continues to apply to undocumented workers after irca
C: holding that undocumented workers can recover damages for violations of the migrant and seasonal agricultural workers protection act as amended by irca
D: holding that in light of hoffman undocumented workers are entitled to compensatory damages under flsa but not other remedies like back or front pay which would contravene the policies underlying irca and otherwise assume the continued and unlawful employment of undocumented workers
D.