Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
A. The City is not indirectly liable for Terry’s and Silverman’s conduct. This case requires us to accommodate the Supreme Court’s mandate in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson that federal courts use traditional agency principles when deciding hostile environment sexual harassment cases, but simultaneously “place some limits on the acts of employees for which employers under Title VII are to be held responsible.” 477 U.S. 57, 72, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2408, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). Because the Eleventh and all other circuits employ agency principles in the realm of hostile environment sexual harassment, this opinion utilizes the language of traditional agency case law. Under this approach, direct liability and indirect liability are distinct concepts and form the only possible ba (10th Cir.1987); Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in accordance with the restatement that a master may be subject to liability for the torts of his servants acting outside the scope of their employment if the servants conduct violated a nondelegable duty of the master or the servant purported to act on behalf of the principal there was reliance upon the apparent authority or he was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relationship
B. holding that existence of deliberate and informed consent turns on whether it is understood between the employee and his employers that he is to remain in the allegiance of the first employer  or is to be employed in the business and subject to the direction of the temporary employer
C. holding that employer liability could arise under the principles of restatement  2192 if 1 the employer was negligent or reckless or 2 the employee relied on the supervisors apparent authority or 3 the supervisor was aided in his harassment by the existence of the agency relationship
D. recognizing the continuing validity of negligence as a separate basis for employer liability in action in which employee alleged supervisor harassment
E. holding that the plaintiff must establish that a supervisors harassment was within the scope of his employment and that the employer failed to respond adequately and effectively when it learned of the harassment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.