24) In Haynes v. Zoological Society of Cincinnati, Haynes was demoted and then red after reporting dangerous conditions at the defendant zoo and then testifying for Stober, a co-worker injured at the zoo. Haynes sued based on retaliation. The court found: A) for the 200 because Haynes was not a zoologist and therefore was not qualified to judge whether conditions were safe or not regarding wild animals. B) for Haynes because the federal Miistle-blower Protection Act expressly provides protections for employees of institutions that deal directly with the public and the zoo could not justify the demotion and ring independent of retaliation. C) for Haynes because she reported safety Violations that could harm members of the public as covered under Ohio law and the zoo could not justify the demotion and firing independent of retaliation. D) for the 200 because the injury to Stober, Haynes's co-worker, resulted from her assumption of risk and contributory acts in trying to feed a grape to a bear