With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". added); see Yerdon v. Henry, 91 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir.1996) (finding that a labor union could be liable under Title VII). In the Court’s view, the Plaintiffs allegations as to her alleged employment relationship with the Union are conclusory and fail to satisfy the liberal pleading standards in Title VII cases. See e.g. Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709, 713-14 (2d Cir.1994) (dismissing the claims based on the plaintiffs conclusory assertions of ra cial and gender discrimination against a university); Timmons v. City of Hartford, 288 F.Supp.2d 712, 717-18 (D.Conn.2003) (dismissing the complaint based in part on the fact that no factual allegations were provided in support of the discrimination claim); Richards v. Frank, No. CV-89-3087, 1991 WL 35502, at *1-*2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 1991) (<HOLDING>). The only nonconclu-sory allegations of

A: holding it appropriate to grant a motion to dismiss a discrimination claim where claim is not supported by factual allegations
B: holding that plaintiffs allegations of abuse did not amount to the allegations of torture required by  1605a7 to survive a motion to dismiss
C: recognizing inferential factual allegations to defeat a motion to dismiss
D: holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim
A.