Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1129, 1132 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1025, 96 S.Ct. 469, 46 L.Ed.2d 399 (1975); Douglass v. Glen E. Hinton Investments, Inc., 440 F.2d 912, 914 (9th Cir. 1971); Hecht v. Harris, Upham & Co., 283 F.Supp. 417, 438-39 (N.D.Cal.1968), modified on other grounds, 430 F.2d 1202, 1210 (9th Cir. 1970); Kamen & Co. v. Paul H. Aschkar & Co., 382 F.2d 689, 697 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 390 U.S. 942, 88 S.Ct. 1021, 19 L.Ed.2d 1129, cert. dismissed, 393 U.S. 801, 89 S.Ct. 40, 21 L.Ed.2d 85 (1967); Jackson v. Bache & Co., Inc., 381 F.Supp. 71, 93-5 (D.C.1974). The Third Circuit is in accord. Rochez Bros., Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 880, 884-86 (3d Cir. 1975); Thomas v. Duralite Co., Inc., 524 F.2d 577, 586 (3d Cir. 1975). Cf. Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand, 457 F.Supp. 879, 890-91 (D.C.Pa.1978) . The Eighth Circuit would seem to be in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that rochez did not foreclose respondeat superior liability for brokerdealers for the fraudulent acts of their employees
B. holding that employees violation of his employers policy against drinking on the job does not preclude liability under respondeat superior
C. recognizing respondeat superior liability
D. holding that employees defamatory statements made at work about matters relating to work were within the scope of their employment for purposes of respondeat superior and recognizing that californias respondeat superior doctrine imposes a broad rule of liability on employers
E. holding that liability may not be predicated upon a theory of respondeat superior because a supervisor can be liable only for his own acts or omissions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.