With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". failed to include the Trustees as payees on those checks. In bringing the present action, the Trustees were clearly seeking to recover moneys owed to the funds, and they invoked ERISA on the theory that PCM’s entering into the agreement requiring that its checks to the subcontractor list the Trustees among the payees brought PCM within ERISA’s definition of an employer and in effect obligated it to make the contributions. The Trustees argued that that view was warranted by the statutory definition and an opinion of this Court, both of which state that the term “employer” includes an entity acting “indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee benefit plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5).” Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp., 68 F.3d 561, 575 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). While we agree with the district court’s

A: holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work
B: holding that the employer was not the insurers agent
C: holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled
D: holding that a surety was not an employer
D.