With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Constitution’s standing requirements to bring particular actions in federal court.”); Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 46 (2d Cir.1997) (“The [defendant] appropriately looks to the [Rehabilitation Act’s] language to determine whether Congress granted an express right of action to persons who otherwise would be barred by prudential standing rules.”). The scope of Title VII’s private right of action therefore depends on whether Congress intended to insulate such an action from prudential concerns. A number of courts have considered whether prudential concerns limit standing under Title VII and have denied standing to plaintiffs alleging injury because of third-party discrimination. See Bermudez v. TRC Holdings, Inc., 138 F.3d 1176, 1180 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Childress, 134 F.3d at 1209 (Luttig, J.,

A: holding white female employee lacks standing under title vii to allege injury on behalf of black applicants to employment agency who were discriminated against because of race
B: holding that white woman who was not object of discrimination but who alleged injury because of race discrimination against another was a person aggrieved within the meaning of title vii
C: holding that white female had standing under title vii to challenge her employees alleged racial discrimination against blacks
D: holding that a white and a black tenant had standing to challenge their landlords acts of discriminating against nonwhite rental applicants
A.