Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
this issue. Kinman states in her affidavit that initially she did not welcome McDougall’ F.3d 1006 (5th Cir.1996) (refusing to hold school district Hable for student-on-student harassment unless the school itself directly discriminated based on sex). The divergence of views on this issue stems in part from the factual disparity in the cases. Title IX cases vary in both the type of discrimination alleged (hostile environment, quid pro quo, sexual abuse, discriminatory hiring/firing, or some combination) and in the identity of the perpetrators and victims (teacher/student harassment, stu dent/student harassment, or school official/teacher harassment). But even those courts which have addressed similar fact patterns have varied in their holdings. Compare Bosley, 904 F.Supp. at 1022  with Rowinsky, 80 F.3d 1006 (refusing to hold
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that an employer is liable for an employees action if the employer knew or should have known about an employees acts of harassment and fails to take appropriate remedial action
B. holding school board liable for studentonstudent harassment if school officials knew of harassment and intentionally failed to take proper remedial action
C. holding school hable for sexual harassment by its employees only if the district knew or should have known and neghgently failed to take prompt effective remedial action
D. holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees
E. holding school district strictly hable for sexual harassment by its employees
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.