With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Kwong Wah Restaurant, 83 F.3d 498, 505 (1st Cir.1996); Gooding v. Warner-Lambert Co., 744 F.2d 354, 358 (3d Cir.1984)). Courts in this circuit have found that a “plaintiff who commences a Title VII action before receiving a right-to-sue letter may nonetheless maintain the action upon subsequent receipt of the letter.” Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. New York State Dept. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Pres., 689 F.Supp.2d 267, 276 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding that “while this practice is discouraged,” the plaintiff subsequently obtained a right-to-sue letter which “cured the defect caused by its failure to receive notice of its right to sue prior to filing this action”); Blanke v. Rochester Telephone Corp., 36 F.Supp.2d 589, 592 n. 1 (W.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff indicated the he obtained a release

A: holding that plaintiff complied with plain language of the notice requirement when notice was mailed within statutory period although it was not received until after
B: holding that although it was not clear why plaintiff apparently filed the complaint in this action prior to his receipt of the righttosue notice since issuance of a righttosue notice is not a jurisdictional requirement however the eeocs subsequent issuance of the notice satisfies the statutory requirements in this case
C: holding notice of balance due satisfies notice and demand requirements
D: holding that upon receipt of the important notice a conclusive presumption of notice was established
B.