With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". I conclude that Michaud failed to pursue available reasonable avenues to complain about the alleged harassment. Thus she cannot succeed in holding Leslie Fay liable for the mistreatment of its low level supervisor, Guarilia, particularly since there is no convincing evidence that Guarilia used whatever small authority he had to effect changes in Michaud’s working environment. She still used her office and porter and she still had regular lunch times and breaks. His unreported demeaning of her physical condition is insufficient to foist liability on Leslie Fay, for his snide comments could just as easily have been made by a coworker as a supervisor; in other words, he did not use his position to abuse her. See Kotcher v. Rosa & Sullivan Appliance Center, Inc., 957 F.2d 59 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Because Michaud has not shown that Leslie Fay

A: holding that certain conduct was irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of it
B: holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive
C: holding that employer not liable for hostile work environment caused by plaintiffs lowlevel supervisor absent notice or the failure to provide a reasonable avenue for complaint
D: holding that allegations of failure to remedy a hostile work environment provided no basis for relief where the evidence demonstrated that the harassment had ended by the time plaintiffs complaint was filed
C.