With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court seeking additional remedies that were unavailable in the CCHRO proceedings. Id. Although the claimant in Nestor, as discussed below, brought claims in federal court for additional damages as well as claims for attorney’s fees, the court’s application of the principle of res judicata is equally forceful and binding here. Ballard seeks additional relief, which is specifically contemplated by Title VII and which was unavailable at the administrative level. As the court in Nestor held, “[A] state court’s decision on the merits of a discrimination claim is entitled to full faith and credit, but ... Title VII permits a claimant to seek — in federal court — ‘supplemental’ relief t 1214, 1999 WL 33116610 (D.Conn. Mar. 31, 1999) (same); with Chris v. Tenet, 221 F.3d 648 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In support of its position, HSBC asks this

A: holding that attorneys fees incurred in a custody action were nondischargeable under  523a5
B: holding in pertinent part that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal
C: holding that federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs suit solely seeking attorneys fees incurred in a prior administrative action
D: holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because it was filed without proper authority
C.