With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". corporations were employees for purposes of the antidiscrimination laws (there, the ADEA), no matter how significant a role they played in managing t ividuals from the protection of Title VII simply by draping them in grandiose titles which convey little or no substance. In our judgment, the correct course is to undertake a case-by-ease analysis aimed at determining whether an individual described as a partner actually bears a close enough resemblance to an employee to be afforded the protections of Title VII. See Strother v. Southern Cal. Permanente Med. Group, 79 F.3d 859, 867-68 (9th Cir.1996) (reversing grant of summary judgment where the trial court based its status determination principally on the fact that the plaintiff was called a partner); see also Devine, 100 F.3d at 81 (<HOLDING>). After all, form should not be permitted to

A: holding in a case involving a professional services corporation that a court should not treat either the individuals title or the entity form as determinative
B: holding that mere fact that clerk assigned defendants case a civil docket number did not demonstrate that the district court failed to treat the case as a criminal matter
C: holding that a professional owes no duty to third persons unless the professional had actual knowledge that those persons would rely on his rendering of professional services
D: holding that if a motion implicates the merits of a cause of action the district court should find jurisdiction exists and treat the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiffs case
A.