Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
public policy. See Keneally u. Orgain (1980), Mont., 606 P.2d 127, 37 St.Rep. 154. In the prior discussion of this case, this Court determined that a covenant of good faith and fair dealing was implied in the parties’ oral, at-will, employment contract. The basis for this holding was the employer’s promulgation of an employees’ handbook, two years after Gates began employment. The handbook provided certain guidelines for termination of employees. We stated that Gates had a cause of action because “if the employer failed to follow its own policies, the peace of mind of its employees is shattered and an injustice is done.” 638 P.2d at 1067, 39 St.Rep. at 20. We then found two genuine issues of material fact: (1) whether respondent failed to afford app 3 Ill.Dec. 559, 384 N.E.2d 353 ; with Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a tort action because an employee was dismissed for serving jury duty
B. recognizing a tort action when employee was dismissed for filing a workers compensation claim
C. recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act
D. holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim
E. holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.