With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". vs. home party sales) and that the “similar to or competitive with” language can be read to refer to the method of direct sales as opposed, or in addition, to the products being sold. In this regard, as the undisputed facts demonstrate, PartyLite and Park Lane are competitors in that they compete for salespeople by offering competitive income opportunities under similar, albeit not identical, compensation schemes. Additionally, PartyLite and Park Lane are similar in that they both use the home party method of direct sales to market their products. That the companies may sell different products does not mandate the conclusion that they are neither similar nor competitive. See American Standard, Inc. v. Humphrey, No. 3:06-cv-893-J-32MCR, 2007 WL 2852362, at *3 (M.D.Fla. Oct. 2, 2007) (<HOLDING>); IONA Techs., Inc. v. Walmsley, No. 021442,

A: recognizing that like any market participant plaintiff likely has some legitimate interests tied up in managers  that would support submitting issue of fact as to whether companies were engaged in the same or similar business even if new employer was not a direct competitor of former employer
B: holding that the intentional tort exception to employer immunity includes an objective standard to measure whether the employer engaged in conduct which was substantially certain to result in injury
C: holding that monitoring telephone calls is in the ordinary course of business where the employer has reason to suspect an employee of disclosing confidential information to business competitor
D: holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation
A.