With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". requires the [employer] to do”) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(d)(1)(D); Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 176 (5th Cir.1988) (finding reasonable accommodation where employer delayed planned schedule changes in order to accommodate employee and offered lower-paying position that did not conflict with Sabbath); Hudson, 851 F.2d at 266 (provisions set forth in a collective bargaining agreement which “provided a means by which [an employee] could bid upon work schedules, work domiciles-, vacation time, and personal leave ... [and] allowed [an employee] to modify her schedule by trading her entire schedule or specific days off with other employees,” taken together, provided the employee with a reasonable accommodation); Smith v. Pyro Mining Co., 827 F.2d 1081, 1088 (6th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Taken together, we believe that the efforts

A: holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits
B: holding that as long as employee has no religious constraints against arranging his own schedule swap with other employees employer reasonably accommodates employee by simply allowing swaps
C: holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employees complaint alleged inter alia employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment employer tested employees blood to monitor lead levels employer willfully and intentionally withheld employees test results which showed employee had developed leadrelated diseases and employer subsequently altered those results to induce employee to continue working for employer employee further alleged employers concealment of employees condition prevented employee from reducing his exposure to lead and obstructed him from receiving appropriate medical treatment and that delay in treatment resulted in aggravation of employees injury
D: holding that so long as the plaintiff had no religious constraints against arranging his own schedule swap with other employees it would be a sufficient reasonable accommodation for the employer simply to be amenable to such a swap without requiring the employer itself actively to solicit other employees to make such a swap
B.