With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". compensation entitlements, see Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 384 N.E.2d 353 (1978), which, like pension and other plan benefits, fall within a class of economic rights and privileges that provide for the special needs of employees in the modern workplace. This view of § 510 would call for an application of Illinois’ residual five-year statute of limitations, 735 ILCS 5/13-205 (1992), since the only Illinois court apparently to have addressed the issue has found that retaliatory discharge claims against private employers are governed by this limitations provision. See Henon v. Lever Brothers Co., 114 Ill.App.3d 608, 70 Ill.Dec. 322, 449 N.E.2d 196 (1983); see also Halleck v. County of Cook, 202 Ill.Dec. 374, 377-78, 637 N.E.2d 1110, 1113-14 (Ill.App.1994) (<HOLDING>); Berghoff v. R.J. Frisby Manufacturing Co.,

A: holding that chapter 504 waives the governmental immunity of political subdivisions for retaliatory discharge claims under chapter 451
B: holding that the aedpa oneyear statute of limitations applies to amendments to  2255 motions
C: holding that the governmental tort immunity acts oneyear limitations period applies to retaliatory discharge claims against public bodies distinguishing but not criticizing henon
D: recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act
C.