With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Although the locum tenens company indicated that there is work in Milwaukee or LaCrosse, the mother testified that those locations were not within a reasonable commuting distance. In any case, the mother has not submitted any applications for part-time work through the locum tenens company. The trial court did not consider the mother's actions, except to say that she looked for part-time employment. That is true, as far as it goes. However, the court should gauge her employability. See Wallen, 139 Wis. 2d at 227. If she is employable, then by the mother's own testimony she could be earning $108,000 per year at a part-time job. ¶ 113. The circuit court's third point must also be viewed with deliberative caution. See Forester v. Forester, 174 Wis. 2d 78, 496 N.W.2d 771 (Ct. App. 1993) (<HOLDING>). But as far as the third point is appropriate,

A: holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment
B: holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim
C: holding exspouse should not be allowed to make a career choice that involves a substantial reduction in her earning capacity and simultaneously insist that her former spouse maintain her at her accustomed stan dard of living
D: holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties
C.