With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". their actual knowledge may be imputed to the city. A title VII employer has actual knowledge of harassment that is known to “higher management” or to someone who has the power to take action to remedy the problem. See Nash, 9 F.3d at 404. The “management” and “remedial power” standards blur together, however, when we examine who may be considered “management,” for to be considered a “manager,” a person must have the ability to exert control over employees. This includes someone with the power not only to hire and fire the offending employee but also to take disciplinary action, to provide significant input into employment decisions, to instruct the offending employee to cease the harassing behavior, or to implement other means of taking remedial action. See Williamson, 148 F.3d at 466 (<HOLDING>) ; Nash, 9 F.3d at 404; Wattman, 875 F.2d at

A: holding plaintiffs supervisor subject to suit
B: recognizing the continuing validity of negligence as a separate basis for employer liability in action in which employee alleged supervisor harassment
C: holding that employer includes supervisor with some authority to address the harassment problem in organization with strong chain of command where supervisor could direct offender to cease and discipline if offender failed to comply
D: holding that if a direct supervisor who had the responsibility to stop harassment knew of and failed to act against it the plaintiff has no further obligation to bring it to the employers attention
C.