With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (Second) of Agency §229, Comment a, at 507 (1958). The uncontradicted evidence in this case establishes that Young’s disclosure of plaintiffs medical record was not the kind of conduct Young was employed to perform. Young’s discovery deposition and an affidavit from Kathy Hull, who oriented, trained, and supervised Young at Illini Hospital, prove that Young’s training as a phlebotomist included drawing blood and keeping records. In a typical day, Young would draw blood, perform drug screens, conduct filing and billing, and deliver medical records to physicians’ mail boxes. Young was not employed to divulge confidential patient information while off duty and after hours in a tavern. See, e.g., Hargan v. Southwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc., 311 Ill. App. 3d 1029, 1033 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The fact that Illini Hospital expressly

A: holding that any acts in which employee engaged with intent to woo plaintiffs wife away from him during business meetings and trips simply had no connection to business of employer
B: holding that the employer had a protectible interest in its good will where the employee had direct contact with its customers and much of the employers business was repeat business
C: holding that thirteen business trips of short duration over eighteen months was not continuous and systematic solicitation of business in the state to justify general jurisdiction
D: holding that the covenants clause prohibiting the employee from being employed  with any corporation  which competes with or otherwise engages in any business of the employer was overbroad because it prohibited the employee from working for a competitor in any capacity
A.