Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of promissory estop-pel. We grant transfer to address these matters. The essence of the employment-at-will doctrine is that an employment contract of indefinite duration is presumptively terminable at the will of either party. McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 390, 392; Streckfus v. Gardenside Terrace Cooperative, Inc. (1987), Ind., 504 N.E.2d 273, 275. The doctrine is deeply rooted in Indiana jurisprudence. See Campbell v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1980), Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 1054, 1060. The doctrine has only rarely been limited. See, e.g., Bochnowski v. Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan (1991), Ind., 571 N.E.2d 282, 285 (allowing claim for tor-tious interference with at-will employment relationship); McClanahan v. Remington Freight, Inc. (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 390, 393 ; and Frampton v. Central Ind. Gas Co. (1983),
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiffs complaint stated an enforceable claim for wrongful discharge where the employee was wrongfully discharged in retaliation for refusing to testify falsely in a medical malpractice case
B. recognizing a tort action for wrongful discharge when employee was terminated because he refused to commit a criminal act
C. holding that an employee was wrongfully discharged for refusing to submit to a polygraph test
D. holding the complaint stated a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where the employee was discharged for refusing to comply with his employers demand that he continue to operate a commercial vehicle for periods of time that violated federal regulations
E. holding that employee stated claim by alleging he was wrongfully discharged for refusing to commit criminal act for which he would be held personally liable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.