With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". supervisor to be individually liable for aiding and abetting the actionable conduct of his employer, when the challenged conduct is failing to stop the supervisor’s own harassment. Cf. United States v. Sain, 141 F.3d 463, 474 (3d Cir.1998) (finding that a person can aid and abet a corporation that he or she fully owns and controls). This is a somewhat awkward theory of liability. We believe, however, that it can be explained in this manner: A supervisor, under New Jersey law, has a duty to act against harassment. See Taylor, 706 A.2d at 691. This duty can be violated by deliberate indifference or affirmatively harassing acts. When a supervisor flouts this duty, he subjects himself and his employer to liability. Cf. Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 25 N.J. 17, 134 A.2d 761 (1957) (<HOLDING>). The ACPD’s wrongful conduct in this ease was

A: holding that an agent owes a fiduciary duty to his principal
B: holding that liability to the insured for acts or contracts of an insurance agent within the scope of his agency with a full disclosure of the principal rests on the company
C: holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes
D: holding that while an agents knowledge is imputed to the principal due to the identity of interests that is presumed when an agent acts within the scope of an agency relation this rule does not operate in the converse and the agent cannot be imputed with the information which its principal has failed to give it
C.