Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
outside the limitations period by establishing a liability cut-off if notice of the first violative behavior is not given within 180 days. CP at 22 (emphasis added). Therefore, we hold that the 180-day limitations provision in the agreement unreasonably favors Fred Lind Manor and thus is substantively unconscionable. Severance of the Substantively Unconscionable Provisions ¶42 Fred Lind Manor urges us to sever any provisions we find to be substantively unconscionable arguing that the essential term of the parties’ bargain, i.e., arbitration, should be retained. Adler, however, contends that because the substantively unconscionable provisions pervade the entire agreement, we should refuse to sever those provisions and declare the entire agreement void. See Ingle, 328 F.3d at 1180 . The 2 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that one candidates status as a pension fund tipped the scales in favor of its appointment as lead plaintiff
B. holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision
C. holding that the employers insidious pattern of seeking to tip the scales in its favor during employment disputes justified a decision to declare the entire agreement unenforceable
D. holding that an employers reservation of right to alter amend or revoke the arbitration policy in an employee handbook did not invalidate the binding agreement to arbitrate employment disputes
E. holding employer cannot lawfully make the signing of an employment agreement which contains an unenforceable covenant not to compete a condition of continued employment an employers termination of an employee who refuses to sign such an agreement constitutes a wrongful termination in violation of public policy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.