Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
policy not to fire employees except for good cause. Plaintiff bases his implied contract claim solely on evidence that the drug policy was posted, that he probably read it, that IBP restricted itself by the policy, and that IBP led employees to believe that it does not fire them except for cause. IBP argues that plaintiff has presented insufficient evidence of contractual negotiations or other circumstances which would tend to make clear the intent of the parties to change the at-will nature of the employment relationship. According to IBP, the fact that IBP unilaterally adopted a drug/alcohol policy and has a general practice of adhering to it does not transform the policy into a binding contract of employment. E.g., Berry v. General Motors Corp., 838 F.Supp. 1479, 1492 (D.Kan.1993) , aff'd, 56 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir.1995). In
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing distinct difference between policy which given employer might adopt and sincerely intend to follow and normally does follow and binding contractual duty
B. recognizing difference between tolling and equitable estoppel
C. holding that failure to follow mandatory provision of statute renders the act void whereas failure to follow directory provision does not
D. recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions
E. holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.