With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". interpreted] to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotations omitted). Verizon contends that Fleming first raised HRL and NYCHRL claims in her Amended Complaint and that the three-year period should be measured from the filing of that pleading. According to Verizon, the Amended Complaint cannot relate back because Plaintiffs Title VII claims were time-barred in the Pro Se Complaint. However, the Pro Se Complaint alleges the same “severe scrutiny” that Plaintiff timely sets forth in the Amended Complaint as a continuing violation under Title VII. As such, the Pro Se Complaint was not wholly untimely, and the cases on which Verizon relies are inapposite. See Henderson v. Bolanda, 253 F.3d 928, 932 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Papenthien v. Papenthien, 16 F.Supp.2d 1235,

A: holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing
B: holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations
C: holding that amended complaint related back where the facts alleged in the original complaint clearly put defendants on notice as to the conduct  at issue in this action
D: holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint
B.