Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
enforcement agencies, who theoretically could have stopped the supervisor. Id. at 537. In those circumstances, the Cudney court could not say the actions the employee took were the ‘only available adequate means’ to protect the public from drunk driving. Id. at 536-38. ¶16 Then, in Piel v. City of Federal Way, 177 Wn.2d 604, 609-17, 306 P.3d 879 (2013), our Supreme Court held the administrative remedies available through the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) under chapter 41.56 RCW were inadequate, on their own, to fully vindicate public policy when a public employer discharges a public employee for asserting collective bargaining rights. Unlike Korslund and Cudney, Piel involved a prior case holding PERC remedies failed to fully address th 474, 478-79, 276 P.3d 382 (2012) , remanded, 180 Wn.2d 1001. Division One of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the remedies available under massachusetts law to challenge tax assessments were sufficient to preclude federal declaratory action
B. holding the employee remedies available under the commercial motor vehicle safety act 49 usc  31105 adequately protected truck drivers who refuse to violate commercial motor vehicle safety laws even though a statute declared these remedies do not preclude others
C. holding that deprivation of personal property does not violate the constitution if there are adequate state remedies available
D. holding that the remedies are exclusive
E. holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.