With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". upon which Gibel can “piggyback” her claim. Therefore, Gibel’s motion to intervene was properly denied. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 2 . The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 3 . There is no state or local fair employment practices agency in Arkansas. Therefore, Shem-pert had 180 days, as opposed to 300 days, after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred to file her charge with the EEOC. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). 4 . The EEOC has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Shempert and submits essentially the same argument on appeal. Therefore, our discussion addresses these arguments simultaneously- 5 . The regulation provides in relevant Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Other circuits have held that a timely-filed

A: holding title vii subject to equitable tolling
B: holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
C: holding that an invalid charge can be perfected through equitable tolling
D: holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
C.