supervisor was asked by company to give an employment reference for one of Supervisor's former workers, Employee. Supervisor did not personally like Employee, so she gave a written reference for Employee that stated that Employee regularly stole merchandise while working for her. Based on the statements concerning stealing merchandise, Company failed to hire Employee. Company informed Employee that Company had relied solely on the statements concerning stolen merchandise in the written reference from Supervisor as the reason they decided not to hire Employee. In fact, Supervisor had no reason to believe that Employee had ever stolen merchandise. However, Employee had in fact regularly stolen merchandise while working for Supervisor. If Employee brings suit against Supervisor for defamation, and all the facts given in the above paragraph are taken as true, what is the probable result? a) Judgment for Supervisor, because as a Supervisor she had a qualified privilege to write defamatory statements about employees, as long as it concerned the work environment. b) Judgment for Employee, because Supervisor was not actually aware of him stealing any merchandise. c) Judgment for Supervisor, because Employee actually did steal the merchandise. d) Judgment for Employee, because Supervisor was motivated to write the reference with a malicious intent