With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". period in employment discrimination cases are not jurisdictional, but rather is subject to equitable tolling, waiver, and estoppel. Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 392, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982); Bonilla, 194 F.3d at 278, Chico-Velez v. Roche Products, Inc., 139 F.3d 56, 58-59 (1st Cir.1998); Jensen v. Frank, 912 F.2d 517, 521 (1st Cir.1990); Ruffino v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., 908 F.Supp. 1019, 1040 (D.Mass.1995). In cases where modification of the statute of limitations has been sought, courts have recognized two distinct but related doctrines: equitable estoppel and equitable tolling. Ruffino, 908 F.Supp. at 1041; see also American Airlines, 133 F.3d at 124 (citing Kale 861 F.2d at 752); Bonilla, 194 F.3d at 279; Jensen, 912 F.2d at 521 (<HOLDING>). “Both doctrines have their roots in a single

A: holding that the government did not have to prove that the defendant knew that his acts violated the clean water act but merely that he was aware of the conduct that resulted in the permits violation
B: holding that the plaintiff had a right of privacy in the contents of a settlement agreement that stated that the plaintiff had sued his employer for failing to hire him because he was a single gay male and because his employer suspected that he had aids
C: holding that in order to qualify for an exception a complainant must allege and prove at the least not only that he had no reason to be aware of his employers improper motivation when the putative violation occurred but also that the employer actively misled him and that he relied on the misconduct to his detriment
D: holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present
C.