With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Pfeiffer, 917 F.2d at 789. Each of the analogous Title IX cases involved a plaintiff who had expressly sought relief under Title IX. Id. (citing Bougher, 713 F.Supp. 139, 146; Mabry v. State Bd. for Cmty. Colls. & Occupational Ed., 597 F.Supp. 1235, 1239 (D.Colo.1984), aff'd on other grounds, 813 F.2d 311 (10th Cir.1987)). The Pfeiffer decision also cited two non-Title IX cases that precluded § 1983 claims even though the plaintiff had not brought statutory claims into which the constitutional claims could be subsumed. Id. (citing Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1011-12, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984) (discussing the Education of the Handicapped Act, 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.); Zombro v. Baltimore City Police Dep’t, 868 F.2d 1364, 1366-67 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>)). The crucial consideration in the preclusion

A: holding that there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial under erisa because congress lacks constitutional authority to limit right to a jury
B: holding that plaintiff state employees contractual right to promotion was not protected by constitutional guarantee of substantive due process because right was not fundamental
C: holding right to testify was federal constitutional right
D: holding that plaintiff may not cavalierly bypass the comprehensive process fashioned by congress in the adea by merely asserting a violation of a constitutional right rather than the statutory right
D.