With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ERISA. Id. at 16. The First Circuit held that there was no invidious discrimination in the employer’s decision partially to terminate benefits where a legitimate business justification for the decision was readily apparent. Id. Here, more is alleged than a disparate impact to plaintiffs as a result of a business decision to alter a plan. Plaintiffs contend that intentional misstatements regarding the modification of retirement plans at MassMutual and Monsanto caused them prematurely to sever the employment relationship with their respective companies. The MassMutual plaintiffs further allege that there was an intentional design to deprive certain employees&emdash;but not others&emdash;of enhanced pension benefits. See Rodowicz v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 857 F.Supp. at 999 (<HOLDING>). The claims of Vartanian and the MassMutual

A: holding that as a general rule pleadings filed in this court are public records and are not subject to being sealed
B: holding that defendants selfserving affidavit was sufficient to raise a factual issue to be resolved at trial
C: holding that parties are bound by admissions in pleadings
D: holding that factual pleadings on this issue are weak but sufficient
D.