Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
law, a municipality may be held vicariously liable on state law claims asserted against individual officers under a theory of respondeat superior.” Marcano, 38 F.Supp.3d at 267; see also Bektic Marrero v. Goldberg, 850 F.Supp.2d 418, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“The doctrine of respon-deat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his servant while acting within the scope of his employment.”). Thus, “an employer may be held liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment.” Judith M. v. Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 N.Y.2d 932, 933, 693 N.Y.S.2d 67, 715 N.E.2d 95 (N.Y. 1999); see also Ramos v. Jake Realty Co., 21 A.D.3d 744, 801 N.Y.S.2d 566, 567 (N.Y. 2005) . Indeed, “New York courts have held
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding intentional assault by coworker to be outside the course and scope of employment
B. recognizing the doctrine reaches even intentional torts such as an employees alleged assault provided the tortious conduct at issue occurred within the scope of employment
C. holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury
D. holding that inter alia employees criminal conviction for alleged tortious act demonstrated employee was not acting in scope of his employment
E. holding that the doctrine of respondeat superior in maryland allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of its employee when that employee was acting within the scope of the employment relationship citations omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.