With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". plaintiff is still not entitled to recover overtime wages because (i) at least one of her referral agencies informed her it would not pay overtime and (ii) she prevented Bellevue from determining how many hours she worked by signing in through multiple referral agencies. As to the first argument, while it is true that one of plaintiffs referral agencies told her that she should not work through it for more than 40 hours per week, see transcript, 9/28/05, at 57, Bellevue itself never told her she should not work there more than 40 hours per week; it told her only that the referral agencies bore responsibility for paying her overtime (the very legal issue here in dispute). See transcript, 9/28/05, at 38-39, 57; see also Holzapfel v. Town of Newburgh, 145 F.3d 516, 525 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). As for the second argument, “once an employer

A: holding that the limitations period should be tolled because plaintiff was told in his severance report that he might be reinstated
B: holding that appellant was entitled to evidentiary hearing based on allegation his trial counsel told him he would most likely face a life sentence if he went to trial when the maximum sentence for the charge he plead guilty to was eleven years
C: holding that an employee might be entitled to overtime where he was told that he would not be paid overtime but was not told to limit his hours
D: holding that defendants prior arrests were insufficient to establish that defendant was aware of his right to appointed counsel even though he told dea officers that he understood his rights
C.