With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the beginning of the sequence of events that led to this late filing, Alvarado’s attorney actively sought to move the case forward. He contacted the EEOC after two years of agency inaction and requested a right to sue letter. When the EEOC sent the error-laden notice the following day, Alvarado’s attorney’s office immediately contacted the EEOC by email to notify it of the missing signature and date. That desire to have an EEOC letter with all the t’s crossed and i’s dotted is a sign of diligence rather than dawdling. See id. (“We are more forgiving, though, when a claimant or her attorney has exercised due diligence in pursuing her rights.”). Then, when more than a week had passed without a corrected notice, Alvarado’s attorney again followed up with the EEOC by email. See id. at 713 (<HOLDING>). Of course, Alvarado would not be in this

A: recognizing attorney diligently and repeatedly followed up on plaintiffs claims
B: holding attorney general could not contract on behalf of the state to employ an assistant attorney beyond the attorney generals own term
C: holding that a corporate plaintiffs claims must be dismissed on the ground of failure of any attorney to appear for the corporation
D: holding plaintiffs claims moot on similar grounds
A.