Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Cir. Ct.2005) (quoting Padilla v. Silver Diner, 63 Va. Cir. 50, 57 (Va. Cir. Ct.2003)). Plaintiff alleges that Voorthuis Optician’s insistence that she report to work in the District of Columbia, where her medical malpractice coverage may not have applied, created an intolerable work condition that forced her to resign. Am. Compl. at ¶ 36. Even assuming that plaintiffs resignation was occasioned by conduct “so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community,” plaintiff failed to identify a specific statute which defendants violated by asking her to report to work in the District of Columbia. See Johnson v. Behsudi, 52 Va. Cir. 533, 538 (Va. Cir. Ct.1997) . Consequently, plaintiffs claim of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in order to sustain an action for constructive discharge the plaintiff must show that the conduct resulting in the resignation violated a virginia public policy embodied in an existing statute
B. holding that an employee could maintain a claim for constructive discharge in violation of virginias public policy exception to the employment atwill doctrine
C. holding that the mere fact of discrimination sans aggravating factors would not sustain a constructive discharge action
D. holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy
E. holding that an employee has no right of action against an employer for wrongful discharge where no clear mandate of public policy is violated thereby
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.