With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Sachs objected to the district court, which adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and denied Goldman Sachs’ motion to compel arbitration. This appeal followed. Because we disagree that a substantive statutory right to pursue a pattern-or-practice claim exists, we reverse. DISCUSSION The FAA authorizes interlocutory appeals from a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A)-(B). We review de novo a district court’s refusal to compel arbitration. Arciniaga v. Gen. Motors Corp., 460 F.3d 231, 234 (2d Cir.2006). We also review de novo the district court’s ruling that Parisi has a substantive right to bring a Title VII class action utilizing the pattern-or-practice method of proof. See United States v. Lyttle, 667 F.3d 220, 223 (2d Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). I. There is no dispute that the agreement

A: holding that we review agency determinations of law de novo
B: holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo
C: holding that we review constitutional challenges de novo
D: holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review
B.