With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". applicants nor was able to give promotions. See Palmer, 794 F.2d at 537-38. The two claims concerning the EPA’s failure to hire Yartzoff for one of the six openings in April 1979 and its refusal to promote him in April 1980 both fail for the same reason. Whether or not we agree with the district court’s assessment that Yartzoff had not produced sufficient evidence on which a factfinder could infer that he was qualified for the positions he sought, Yartzoff admits that he failed to complete applications and otherwise comply with proper hiring and reclassification procedures. In unusual circumstances, failure to apply for a position may not vitiate a Title VII action. See International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 367-68, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 1870-71, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977) (<HOLDING>). The record in this case, however, to say the

A: recognizing that title vii protects individuals from retaliation regardless of the merit of their complaints so long as they can show a good faith reasonable belief that the challenged practices violate title vii
B: holding that white woman who sued under title vii to enjoin racially discriminatory employment practices was aggrieved person within meaning of the statute
C: holding that a nonapplicant may pursue a title vii action on a showing that he was deterred from applying by the employers discriminatory practices
D: holding that title vii proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation
C.