With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ill.Dec. 31, 545 N.E.2d 684, 687 (Ill.1989) (adopting “the analytical framework ... addressing claims brought under Title VII” to an employment discrimination claim brought pursuant to the IDHA); see also Tompkins v. Bank of America Corp., 2011 WL 1303953, *2 (N.D.Ill. April 5, 2011). Similarly, in determining what constitutes harassment and a hostile work environment under the IHRA, Illinois courts and the Illinois Department of Human Rights have examined federal decisions under Title VII as the “prohibition of harassment in the Act closely parallels that found in Title VII.” Trayling v. Bd. of Fire & Police, 273 Ill.App.3d 1, 10, 209 Ill.Dec. 846, 652 N.E.2d 386, 393 (2d Dist. 1995); Bd. of Trustees v. Knight, 163 Ill.App.3d 289, 294, 114 Ill.Dec. 836, 516 N.E.2d 991 (5th Dist.1987) (<HOLDING>). Because Title VII, Section 1981 and IHRA

A: holding that the use requirement exists for  proposed state law claims and is analyzed in the same manner as under the federal claims
B: recognizing that standards of liability under title vi are different from traditional agency principles or the general standards of liability under title vii
C: recognizing that claims arising under the ihra are analyzed under the same standards as title vii claims
D: holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act
C.