With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". efforts, Miller repeatedly contacted her regional Labor office for a period of four months, and received no response. See id. at *4. In the case at bar, the plaintiffs’ efforts were limited to Ms. Fail’s infrequent inquiries with her local employment office and with other displaced Sonoco workers. See Pis.’ Resp. at 3. The purpose of Ms. Fail’s three visits to the state employment office, within the relevant time frame, was never strictly to request information about the Sonoco petition. Therefore, the Court finds that Ms. Fail’s inquiries as to the status of the Sonoco petition only with the local state employment office do not meet the due diligence requirement imposed on plaintiffs who seek to argue equitable remedies. Compare Siemens, 24 CIT at 1202-05, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 1109-11 (<HOLDING>), with Quality Fabrication, 2003 Ct. Int’l

A: recognizing difference between tolling and equitable estoppel
B: holding that plaintiffs allegations of inducement and trickery were without merit and rejecting arguments of equitable tolling
C: holding title vii subject to equitable tolling
D: holding that postconviction allegations directly refuted by the trial record are without merit
B.