With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the NLRA. It would conflict with IRCA because “precluding the remedy would increase the incentives for employers to hire undocumented aliens,” which would, in tu 11th Cir.1988) (applying the FLSA to undocumented aliens to further IRCA’s goal of “eliminating employers’ economic incentives to hire” them); Contreras, 25 F.Supp.2d at 1059-60 (continuing after IRCA to apply the FLSA to undocumented workers and to award them punitive damages, noting that “[t]he Ninth Circuit has taken the - broader view of the Sure-Tan holding, upholding awards of back pay to undocumented aliens for wrongful employment" practices if, during their time of discharge, the workers remained in the U.S. available for work, and the back pay period could be calculated with certainty”): Escobar, 814 F.Supp. at 1498 (<HOLDING>); EEOC v. Switching Systems Div. of Rockwell

A: holding that undocumented workers can recover damages for violations of the migrant and seasonal agricultural workers protection act as amended by irca
B: holding that in light of hoffman undocumented workers are entitled to compensatory damages under flsa but not other remedies like back or front pay which would contravene the policies underlying irca and otherwise assume the continued and unlawful employment of undocumented workers
C: holding that the right to recover a particular measure of damages in a workers compensation case is fixed as of the date of injury
D: holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act
A.