Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
does not of itself create an inference that a given act done by him was within the scope of employment. If, however, it is also proved that the act tended to accomplish an authorized purpose ... there is an inference that it was within the scope of employment.” Restatement § 228 Cmt. b. Even though some acts forbidden by the employer, including tortious or criminal acts, may be considered within the scope of employment, the “master is not responsible for acts which are clearly inappropriate or unforeseeable in the accomplishment of the authorized result.” Restatement § 231 Cmt. a.; § 229. . Several courts have held that sexual harassment is, by its very nature, not within the scope of employment. See, Jansen v. Packaging Corp of America, 895 F.Supp. 1053, 1061, n. 9 (N.D.Ill.1995) ; Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that eeoc charge filed by plaintiff more than 180 days after alleged incident of sexual harassment was timely where alleged sexual harassment violation continued as hostile work environment through time of plaintiffs termination
B. holding that an employer must remedy situation of sexual harassment
C. holding that restatement  2191 is inapplicable to alleged sexual harassment by a supervisor was sexual harassment within the scope of antonis employment of course not
D. holding that sexual harassment is a personal injury tort
E. holding that illegal sexual harassment is an illegitimate corporate activity beyond the scope of the supervisors employment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.