With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1301 (D.C.1994)). And under Title VII, when a policy is “discriminatory on its face,” the defendant’s motive is irrelevant. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121, 105 S.Ct. 613, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985); see Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 199, 111 S.Ct. 1196, 113 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991) (“[T]he absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. Whether an employment practice involves disparate treatment through explicit facial discrimination does not depend on why the employer discriminates but rather on the explicit terms of the discrimination.”); see also Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 716-17, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Since September 2004, BSA has refused to

A: holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii
B: holding employers admitted policy discriminatory on its face
C: holding that insurance plan that provided less extensive pregnancy benefits to married male employees than to married female employees discriminated against males in violation of title vii
D: holding that an employers policy requiring female employees to make larger pension fund contributions than male employees was discriminatory on its face in violation of title vii
D.