Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
categories .... “ ‘[U]nless an employee at will identifies a specific expression of public policy, he may be discharged with or without cause.’ ” Id. (quoting Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 417 A.2d 505, 512 (1980)). Accordingly, the courts interpreting New Mexico law have adhered to the rule that retaliatory discharge is a narrow exception to the rule of employment at will and have refused to expand its application. See Zaccardi v. Zale Corp., 856 F.2d 1473, 1475-76 (10th Cir.l988)(discharge for refusal to take polygraph examination did not violate public policy); Ellis v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 754 F.2d 884, 885 (10th Cir.1985) (discharge for use of employer’s grievance procedure did not violate public policy); Jeffers v. Butler, 762 F.Supp. 308, 310 (D.N.M.1990), aff'd without opinion, 931 F.2d 62 (10th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that no public policy stated where employee and not public at large would benefit from employees whistleblowing actions
B. holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy
C. holding employees identified no clear public policy which their termination violated
D. holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy
E. recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.