With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the Bureau’s own regulations indicate that it does not pay for “household work related to the individual,” which the federal regulation expressly contemplates as a component of companionship services. See Ohio Admin. Code § 4123-7-25(F) (denying compensation for household duties). We reject these arguments for two reasons. First, we find persuasive the rationale of the court in Lott, 746 F.Supp. at 1087-88, which drew on the exemption’s legislative history to hold that “domestic service employment” simply means being “employed in a private home.” Because Ms. Salyer renders her services to Mr. Salyer almost entirely within their home, she is undoubtedly engaged in domestic service employment to provide companionship services to her disabled husband. Cf. Linn, 891 F.Supp. at 578-79 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as heretofore indicated, the

A: holding that insider transaction did not fall within scope of  547c2
B: holding that a plaintiff analogous to ms salyer who did not work in private homes did not fall within the companionship services exemption
C: holding that a professor who suffered a fatal fall collecting soil samples in antarctica was not engaged in public work within the meaning of the dba
D: holding that counseling sessions and written criticisms of employees work performance did not fall within the types of materially adverse employment actions
B.