With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Nat’l W. Life Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 379, 383 (5th Cir.1998)). The provisions in the first set are prescriptive: they create a series of substantive rights, namely, the right to take up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave under certain circumstances. Id. (citations omitted). The provisions in the second set are proscriptive: they bar employers from penalizing employees and other individuals for exercising their rights. Id. (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)-(2); Chaffin v. John H. Carter Co., 179 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir.1999)); see also Bocalbos, 162 F.3d at 383 (“[T]he Act protects employees from interference with their leave as well as against discrimination or retaliation for exercising their rights.” (citations omitted)); Faris v. Williams WPC-I, Inc., 332 F.3d 316, 320-22 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Ordinarily, cases seeking to enforce

A: holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction
B: holding that there is a distinction between substantive fmla rights and causes of action for retaliation designed to protect those rights
C: holding that there is no distinction in the right to jury trial between sentencing factors and elements
D: recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel
B.