With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Nor did the district court err in failing to adopt as establishing a timely filing" the EEOC’s issuance of a right to sue letter. This form letter contains no statement that the EEOC found the plaintiffs’ charge timely nor any guarantee that a court action based on the charge would be found timely. Even if it had contained such a statement, the district court is not bound by EEOC determinations. See Williams v. Nashville Network, 132 F.3d 1123, 1129 (6th Cir.1997) (finding “no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to exclude [an] EEOC letter” from evidence where there was “little if any basis for the district court to conclude that the report had any probative value”); see also EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 1996 WL 557800, at *12 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 1996) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). The district court was not required to

A: holding that the district court did not err by refusing to allow the defendant to absent himself from the trial at which his identification would be an integral issue
B: holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to give the defendants tendered instruction regarding the voluntariness of his confession
C: holding that a district court does not err as a matter of law by categorically refusing to admit eeoc cause determinations in either bench and sic jury trials
D: holding that trial court did not err
C.