With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Polsby v. Shalala, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1940, 123 L.Ed.2d 646 (1993). Because the Supreme Court vacated Polsby on this ground, no meaningful argument can be made that the Supreme Court in any way addressed the merits of the present issue or concluded Polsby to be legally incorrect. See United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 983 F.2d 578, 581-82 & n.2 (4th Cir.1992) (adopting reasoning of vacated opinion where vacatur did not address the issue). In light of the Supreme Court’s action, we write on a clean slate. 2 . See Reed, 939 F.2d at 492-93. 3 . See Charlton v. Paramus Bd. of Educ., 25 F.3d 194, 198-200 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 590, 130 L.Ed.2d 503 (1994); Passer v. American Chem. Soc’y., 935 F.2d 322, 331 (D.C.Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Bailey v. USX Corp., 850 F.2d 1506, 1509

A: holding employees under age discrimination in employment acts adea parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship
B: holding that claims arising under the age discrimination in employment act may be subject to arbitration
C: holding employee under fair labor standard acts antiretaliation provision includes former employees
D: holding that the adeas parallel provision prohibits retaliation against a federal employee who complains of age discrimination
A.