X Corp. operates a call center that received order for pizzas on behalf of Y Corp. which operates a chain of pizza restaurants. The two companies have the same set of corporate officers. After 2 years, X corp. dismissed its call agents for no apparent reason. The agents filed a collective suit for illegal dismissal against both X Corp. and Y corp. based on the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction. The latter set up the defense that the agents are in the employ of X Corp. which is a separate juridical entity. Is this defense appropriate? Choose the correct answer and explain.

a .No, since the doctrine would apply, the two companies having the same set of corporate officers.

b. No, the real employer is Y Corp., the pizza company, with X Corp. serving as an arm for receiving its outside orders for pizzas.

c. Yes, it is not shown that one company completely dominates the finances, policies, and business practices of the other.

d. Yes, since the two companies perform two distinct businesses.