Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
results in a work-related “injury” or not — are entitled to a maximum of 100% of their back pay, as long as that sum does not lead to double recovery. Duplicative benefits must be deducted, as the district court did here. We reach the same conclusion on a second, independent ground. As we have noted above, relief under Title VII in the form of back pay is purely “equitable” in nature. See supra pp. 514-15. By contrast, relief under FECA consists of “compensation” (i.e., damages) defined as a per centage of the employee’s monthly salary. Because the exclusivity provisions of FECA are limited solely to other forms of “compensation,” they are simply not applicable to the types of “equitable” relief authorized by Title VII. See, e.g., Smith v. Barton, 914 F.2d 1380, 1337 (9th Cir.1990) , cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1217, 111 S.Ct. 2825,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that compensatory time used by plaintiff police officers can be deducted from award of back pay
B. holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief
C. holding that compensatory money damages are generally distinct from equitable forms of relief such as injunctions or back pay
D. holding that money damages do not qualify as equitable relief within the meaning of  1132a3
E. holding that equitable relief under  502a3 does not include compensatory and punitive damages
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.