With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to characterize the agency relationships on which it focuses. The acts the dissent goes on to describe — discriminatory "hiring or firing decision[s],’’ Dissent at 974 — are “company acts” that do not involve an unusual degree of attenuation between employer/defendant and employee/wrongdoer. These are precisely the sorts of cases in which employers' claims to have misunderstood the extent of their legal obligations are least plausible. 7 . We need not address the scope of employer liability for "noncompany acts” such as sexual harassment. 8 . As with § 1981, the position of the Seventh Circuit on this question is not simple to characterize. The Emmel decision comports with the approach we take today, as do Tincher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 118 F.3d 1125, 1132 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), and Ortiz v. John O. Butler Co., 94 F.3d

A: holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination
B: holding that discrimination is unlawful even if only one of several motives for adverse employment action
C: holding that evidence of egregiousness is required for punitive damages since otherwise every employment discrimination claim could include a punitive damage award because every employment discrimination plaintiff must demonstrate an intentional unlawful discrimination
D: holding that in a discrimination case plaintiff must prove that firing was a result of intentional discrimination
C.