Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
at 1241 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 516, 519, which vest the Attorney General, acting through the officers of the Justice Department, with plenary authority to settle litigation in which federal agencies are a party). Settlement is to be encouraged. See United States v. McInnes, 556 F.2d 436, 441 (9th Cir.1977) (“We are committed to the rule that the law favors and encourages compromise settlements.”). Indeed, if the Longliners’ position is carried to its logical conclusion, then any attempt by federal agencies to settle litigation involving a regulation would entail a return to the same rulemaking process by which the regulation was created — a proposition that contradicts the Supreme Court’s policy determination in another context. See Local No. 93, 478 U.S. at 524 n. 13, 106 S.Ct. 3063 . The fact that the Federal Agencies complied
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that a limit on the governments ability to enter a consent decree would make it substantially more difficult to settle title vii litigation
B. holding that arbitration agreement that did not provide for award of attorney fees to successful title vii claimant was unenforceable because the right to attorneys fees  is central to the ability of persons to seek redress from violations of title vii
C. holding that nonparties to a consent decree resolving a title vii case may fully challenge beyond the narrow grounds normally available for such a collateral attack employment decisions taken pursuant to it
D. holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration
E. holding that absent a factual basis rendering it invalid an oral agreement to settle a title vii claim is enforceable against a plaintiff
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.