Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
state actor deprived him of a pro tected property interest without due process of law. See Doherty v. City of Chicago, 75 F.3d 318, 322 (7th Cir.1996). The District argues that (1) Kiser did not have a property interest in his continued employment and, (2) even if he had such an interest, his own allegations establish that his due process rights were not violated. As to the first argument, the critical question is whether Kiser had a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to continued employment. Thornton v. Barnes, 890 F.2d 1380, 1386 (7th Cir.1989) (quoting Bd. of Regents of State Coll. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). Every contract that limits the reasons an employee may be terminated creates such an entitlement. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 578, 92 S.Ct. 2701 . Kiser’s contract was to last through June 30,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that interest does not begin to accrue until the date of judgment not the date of verdict
B. holding that cbs could raise the faragherellerth defense because even though the plaintiff was sexually harassed and terminated the evidence showed that plaintiff was terminated for leaving his camera during a live broadcast
C. holding that an employment at will agreement is an enforceable contract until terminated by either party
D. holding that a plaintiff had an employment interest until the date his appointment terminated
E. holding that for causes of action not time barred as of the date of the trustees appointment the limitation period is tolled for an additional two years from the date of appointment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.