With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Union violated New York Human Rights law by failing to contest the board-certification requirement. Although the complaint does not explain the basis for such liability, in light of the fact that the Union is not an “employer” under New York Human Rights law, liability must be based on Executive Law § 296(6), which forbids “aiding and abetting” of discrimination. See N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(6) (McKinney’s 1993) (making unlawful the aiding or abetting of “the acts forbidden under this article”). Because, as explained above, plaintiffs’ claims against the non-Union Defendants are without merit, there are no acts “forbidden under [that] article,” which could have been aided or abetted by the Union. See, e.g., Sowemimo v. D.A.O.R. Security, Inc., 43 F.Supp.2d 477, 490-91 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>); Rivera v. Prudential Ins. Co., No. 95 CV 0829

A: holding that title vii and nyhrl claims are arbitrable
B: holding that coconspirator liability for a  924c offense may be established under pinkerton liability
C: holding no liability existed under the circumstances
D: holding that liability under  2966 cannot attach without first finding employer liability for discrimination under nyhrl
D.