Given the task definition and input, reply with output. In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

party's claim, cf. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 417-18, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975), the public interest aspect of such a claim is less significant than an EEOC suit seeking large-scale injunc-tive relief to attack discrimination more generally. Recognizing these competing policies, we agree with the balance struck by the Second Circuit, which held that although the EEOC "may seek injunctive relief in the federal forum for employees even when those employees have entered into binding arbitration agreements," it may not pursue relief in court in that case, monetary relief specific to individuals who have waived their right to a judicial forum by signing an arbitration agreement. Kidder, Peabody, 156 F.3d at 302-03; but see Frank's Nursery, 177 F.3d at 459-67 (<HOLDING>). When the EEOC seeks "make-whole" relief for a
Holding statements: (A) holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred the eeoc from seeking individualized benefits under the adea on behalf of individuals whose own suits were unsuccessful because the eeoc was in privity with those individuals (B) holding that neither a letter from the eeoc nor an attached charge of age discrimination qualified as a claim under a claimsmade policy because the documents failed to request money or other relief and only served to put the plaintiff on notice that a demand for relief may subsequently follow (C) holding that the pjlaintiff was not seeking the enforcement of a final eeoc order because he specifically requested more relief than the eeoc awarded (D) holding that an arbitration agreement between a charging party and an employer precludes the eeoc from seeking purely monetary relief in federal court on behalf of the charging party but not from seeking broad injunctive relief (E) holding that neither the faa nor principles of preclusion or waiver could operate to bar the eeoc from seeking monetary relief on behalf of aggrieved individuals
holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred the eeoc from seeking individualized benefits under the adea on behalf of individuals whose own suits were unsuccessful because the eeoc was in privity with those individuals