With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". which the case would most likely be appealed. See, e.g., Secretary of Labor v. Interstate Brands Corp., 20 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1102, at *2 n. 7 (2003). Under the law of our circuit, the Secretary will make out a prima facie case for the violation of an OSHA standard by showing (1) that the regulation applied; (2) that it was violated; (3) that an employee was exposed to the hazard that was created; and importantly, (4) that the employer “knowingly disregarded” the Act’s requirements. See Reich, 16 F.3d at 1155 (citing Cleveland Consolidated, Inc. v. Occupational Saf he supervisor may not have directly seen the subordinate’s misconduct, but he was in close enough proximity that he should have. See, e.g., Secretary of Labor v. Hamilton Fixture, 16 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1073, at *17-19 (1993) (<HOLDING>). In the alternative, the Secretary can show

A: holding that the fact that defendant was standing in an open area between two apartment buildings and walked away upon the approach of law enforcement officers did not justify an investigatory detention
B: holding that constructive knowledge was shown where the supervisor who had just walked into the work area was 10 feet away from the violative conduct
C: holding that the fact the defendant matched an anonymous tips description was seen in a high crime area and walked away when police approached was insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion
D: holding that a hostile work environment was sufficient to constitute constructive discharge because the harassment was expressed by the plaintiffs supervisor and the offending language was not only used in the plaintiffs presence but was directed at him
B.