Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
claims in exchange for severance pay and Stull’s promise to pay her another month’s medical benefits. Stull insists that it upheld its end of the bargain — it paid benefits through November 30. Although Marie did not receive severance pay, an issue discussed more fully below, Stull asserts that Marie was not contractually entitled to it because she did not fulfill the condition precedent of working through November 6. Berthony responds that the SSP’s waiver does not protect Stull, for each of Berthony’s claims arose subsequent to Marie’s acceptance of the waiver, which occurred on October 11, 1998. He submits that our precedents refuse to recognize waivers of claims arising in the future. See Three Rivers Motors Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 522 F.2d 885, 896 n. 27 (3d Cir.1975) . Moreover, he asserts that Stull’s concept of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding similar agreement void on public policy grounds
B. holding exhaustion clauses to be void as against hawaiis public policy
C. holding physicians covenants not to compete are unenforceable and void as a matter of public policy
D. holding that where agreement prohibits recovery of attorneys fees in civil rights case the relevant portions of the arbitration policy are therefore void as against public policy
E. holding that prospective waivers of claims are void as against public policy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.