With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". wrong.” Id. at 2. In Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 359 U.S. 231, 79 S.Ct. 760, 3 L.Ed.2d 770 (1959), the United States Supreme Court followed the “maxim that no man may take advantage of his own wrong” in holding that the defendant was estopped from raising a statute of limitations defense where the defendant had induced the delay in plaintiff bringing suit. Id. at 231-32, 79 S.Ct. 760. Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court held that if the plaintiff was justifiably misled by the defendant into a good faith belief that he could begin his action outside the statute of limitations, plaintiff was entitled to have the case tried on the merits. Id. at 235, 79 S.Ct. 760; see also Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Plaintiff also argues

A: holding equitable tolling was not warranted where counsel misadvised client as to the deadline to file a habeas petition
B: holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
C: holding that equitable tolling is allowed where the complainant had been induced or tricked by his adversarys misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass
D: holding that the filing deadline under title vii is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
C.