With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Tregenza v. Great American Communications Co., 12 F.3d 717, 721 (7th Cir. 1993) (“Equitable tolling just means that without fault by either party the plaintiff does not have enough information to sue within the period of limitations ***.”); Lehman v. United States, 154 F.3d 1010, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Equitable tolling focuses primarily on the plaintiff’s excusable ignorance of the limitations period,” whereas “[ejquitable estoppel focuses on the actions of the defendant” (emphases in original)). A “nonjurisdictional federal statute of limitations is normally subject to a ‘rebuttable presumption’ in favor ‘of equitable tolling.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S._,_, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2560 (2010) (quoting Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs 85, 393 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Pertinent here, the doctrine has been applied

A: holding that the statute of limitations contained in section 2501 is jurisdictional and is not subject to tolling waiver or estoppel
B: holding that the filing deadline under title vii is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
C: holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
D: holding that the timely filing of a discrimination charge with the equal employment opportunity commission is a requirement like a statute of limitations that is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
D.