With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on appeal. Another Fourth Circuit panel followed Pecker's lead in Morris v. Rice, 985 F.2d 143 (4th Cir.1993). Morris expressly found, citing Haskins and Moore, that "the plaintiff may limit and tailor his request for de novo review, raising questions about the remedy without exposing himself to a de novo review of a finding of discrimination.” Id. at 145. However, neither Haskins nor Moore supports such a broad right. Similarly, in dictum, the Ninth Circuit has cited Haskins and other cases as allowing partial de novo review, with apparent approval. Girard v. Rubin, 62 F.3d 1244, 1247 (9th Cir.1995). However, Girard offers no analysis, and appears to be in some tension with other Ninth Circuit precedent. See Plummer v. Western Int'l Hotels Co., Inc., 656 F.2d 502 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); cf. Williams v. Herman, 129 F.Supp.2d 1281,

A: holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii
B: holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii
C: holding that in a private employees title vii action administrative findings were not binding in a trial de novo
D: holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original
C.