With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the costs associated with these actions prohibitive and would effectively preclude plaintiffs from bringing such claims. Id. Second, a number of Circuits have altered or invalidated arbitration agreements where they interfered with the recovery of statutorily authorized damages. See, e.g., Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25, 47-48 (1st Cir.2006) (severing as unenforceable a provision of an arbitration agreement limiting availability of treble damages under the Sherman Act); Hadnot v. Bay, Ltd., 344 F.3d 474, 478 n. 14 (5th Cir.2003) (severing a restriction on available remedies from an arbitration agreement after finding that a “ban on punitive and exemplary damages is unenforceable in a Title VII case”); Paladino v. Avnet Computer Techs., Inc., 134 F.3d 1054, 1062 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Parisi asserts Title VII claims and, as a

A: holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute  the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable
B: holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause
C: holding that nothing necessarily prevents a court from finding an arbitration clause unenforceable in a contract that it later finds is enforceable
D: holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause
A.