With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". statute is clearly erroneous. First, the FCHR’s conclusion that a personal representative of a decedent’s estate is not a “legal representative” of the deceased for all purposes is consistent with the specific and limited duties and powers of a personal representative as set forth in the Florida Probate Code. See §§ 733.602, 733.608, Fla. Stat. (2014). Second, the FCHR’s interpretation of the statute is in conformity with federal case law interpreting similar language in Title VIL See, e.g., Wright ex rel. Wright v. United States, 914 F.Supp.2d 837 (S.D.Miss.2012) (Title VII claim cannot be brought by personal representative of employee’s estate where the employee did not initiate the complaint for discrimination prior to death); Pueschel v. Veneman, 185 F.Supp.2d 566, 571 (D.Md.2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, Mr. Cimino did not initiate a complaint

A: holding county employee with unenforceable contract was atwill employee
B: holding that a sexual assault on a female employee was of a personal nature and not directed against the employee as part of the employment relationship
C: holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee
D: recognizing that the survivor of a deceased federal employee has no standing to file an eeo complaint on behalf of that former employee but personal representative of deceased employee can be substituted as plaintiff if deceased employee initiated complaint prior to death
D.